Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Emergency Situation

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when she proposes to relax the emergency measures in Aden and Southern Arabia and to release detainees and to resume negotiations on the basis of free choice and self-determination with representative political leaders.

Mrs. McKay: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if she is satisfied that the suspension of the Aden Constitution and the application of emergency measures have provided adequate security safeguards how long she expects the state of emergency to continue and what measures she has in hand to bring it to a conclusion.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether she will make a statement on the progress of plans for a return to constitutional progress in Aden.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mrs. Eirene White): Proposals prepared by constitutional experts appointed by the Federal Supreme

Council will, we hope, offer a basis for agreement on a constitution for the whole area, including Aden and the Eastern Protectorates. The Council expects to receive the report before the end of this month.
Her Majesty's Government have always been willing to hold discussions with representative political leaders in Aden, as in the rest of South Arabia. The new proposals will provide a fresh opportunity.
Although the partial suspension of the Aden Constitution has improved the security situation in Aden State and has helped to produce greater stability in South Arabia generally, the terrorist campaign, organised from outside, has continued. The emergency measures will be lifted immediately this can be done without prejudicing the safety of law abiding citizens.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will not my hon. Friend ask her right hon. Friends to look around the Commonwealth and study the recent history of Colony after Colony, which demonstrates conclusively that oppressive measures and the kind of terminology that she has employed today about the inhabitants of this territory has always, in the end, had but one result—that we have had to give in in the end? Will not she end the repressive measures and start free political discussions with the real representatives of the area?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be shorter.

Mrs. White: As I have pointed out, terrorist activity in Aden is almost entirely organised from outside that territory. We are hopeful that the new situation will lead to further constitutional advance.

Mrs. McKay: What possibilities are there of the political situation showing sufficient progress to permit the Government to advance the suggested date of withdrawal?

Mrs. White: It would not be profitable to discuss this matter until we know what the proposals are that I referred to in my Answer.

Mr. Jackson: Bearing in mind all the difficulties, what chance does my hon. Friend feel there might be for talks in


London with Mr. Mackawee and Mr. Abdullah Al Asnag.

Mrs. White: I am certain that if either of these gentlemen cared to come my noble Friend the Secretary of State would be very willing to discuss matters with them.

Mr. Fisher: Apart from relaxing the emergency measures, can the hon. Lady give an assurance that the Government have the determination and the means to protect innocent people and to eliminate the organised terrorism and assassination which have cost many innocent lives, both Service and civilian, in the past 15 months?

Mrs. White: The Government are naturally deeply concerned by the casualties which have occurred in the last months. Steps have been taken to tighten up the security measures and these have met with some success.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Minister's Visit

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if she will make a statement on her visit to Hong Kong, indicating what interviews she had, and the resulting plans for the internal self-government of that area and for the better distribution of its trade with Great Britain, particularly with Scotland.

Mrs. White: During a week's visit I saw as much of the Colony and as many people as possible. Talks were held with the Governor, members of the Executive, Legislative and urban councils, representatives of industry and commerce and of other unofficial (including women's) organisations. There are no plans for internal self-government. Among the subjects discussed was possible extension of local government and also trade between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hughes: Did my hon. Friend emphasise the importance of Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce and other trade centres keeping a continuous flow of information between themselves and British trade enterprises and British chambers of commerce with a view to increasing the interchange of trade?

Mrs. White: That, of course, is highly desirable. My hon. Friend may know that a British Week is being held in Hong Kong in March which will provide an admirable opportunity for the exchange of information with commercial interests from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if she will make a statement on her visit to Hong Kong, with special reference to the housing situation and water supply.

Mrs. White: While in Hong Kong I was much impressed with the progress made with housing in the last ten years. Many people are still living in unsatisfactory conditions, but the Hong Kong Government have set themselves a greatly increased housing target for the period up to 1974.
On a visit to the New Territories, I saw some of the construction work on the Plover Cove Scheme which will, on completion, treble Hong Kong's water storage capacity. This and other lesser works should enable increasing demand to be satisfied for some years ahead.

Mr. Rankin: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, and recognising what the Hong Kong Government have done, is she aware that there are still 300,000 shack dwellers in Hong Kong with 40,000 persons living on top of other people's houses and with a water supply which is still inadequate? Did she ask the Hong Kong Government to speed up the remedial measures which they have said they are taking?

Mrs. White: I was satisfied that the Hong Kong Government have made tremendous efforts to deal with the enormous housing problem. The water supply was at one time the cause of great anxiety, but it has been very much improved and will be further improved in the ways I have suggested.

Drug Trafficking

Mr. Rankin: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what inquiries she made into the extent of the drug trade during her visit to Hong Kong.

Mrs. White: I discussed this matter with the Governor and his advisers. The Hong Kong Government co-operate


closely with other Governments and the United Nations in measures against drug trafficking. Action in the fields of illicit traffic, rehabilitation of addicts, research and popular education is now coordinated by the recently established Action Committee against Narcotics.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1959 the Hong Kong Government said that they would take particular and speedy measures to suppress this trade, but that today Hong Kong is still the centre of this drug trade in the Far East with 80,000 addicts in the Colony itself?

Mrs. White: I do not pretend that the position does not cause anxiety, but I am satisfied that very great efforts are being made to combat this evil.

Equal Pay

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consideration is being given to the provision of equal pay for men and women teachers in Government service in Hong Kong.

Mrs. White: Yes, Sir.

Dame Joan Vickers: May I thank the hon. Lady for her reply and point out that this was a very interesting case, because it was the men who demanded that the women should get equal pay as they thought the women were undercutting them in getting the jobs they should have had.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARBADOS

Independence

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the wish of Barbados for independence separately from the recently announced plan for the West Indies.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if she will make a statement regarding future independence for Barbados.

Mrs. White: A request from the Barbados Government for a conference to discuss the question of independence

for Barbados was received on 27th January. We propose to agree to this request and to arrange a conference at a mutually convenient time.

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that this new development in our British community of nations should be considered in the light of the most democratic principles, and will she see that that idea is implemented?

Mrs. White: That, of course, would be the object of the conference.

Mr. Johnson: Will my hon. Friend give the House the pledge before the conference that elections will be held in the islands before independence is finally given? Is she aware that West Indian politicians, particularly the gentlemen now in Bridgetown, are not squeamish about their methods of dealing with the opposition?

Mrs. White: Of course, it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that before independence is agreed we should have an assurance that the majority of the people in any territory desire that independence.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Economy

Mr. Fisher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent further budgetary or economic aid is required to sustain the economy of Gibraltar; and when talks will be held with Gibraltar Ministers to consider this matter.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what further steps she intends to take to help the people of Gibraltar in the present adverse economic circumstances caused by the boycott measures of the Spanish Government.

Mrs. White: I am glad to say that the 1966 budget of the Gibraltar Government is almost in balance. I understand that the Gibraltar Government wish to discuss the development proposals of the Gibraltar Study Group when they have studied the full report, which they hope to receive in two or three weeks' time.

Mr. Fisher: I am very glad to hear that there are probably to be further


talks on the economic side. Would the hon. Lady agree however, that over the period now of 15 months there has been no political or effective diplomatic assistance for Gibraltar and that the Colony is entitled to look for this from the sovereign Power? Do the Government intend to discharge their responsibilities to the Government and people of Gibraltar? Can we have a straight answer, "Yes" or "No"?

Mrs. White: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that very substantial support has been offered to the Government of Gibraltar.

Mr. Fisher: indicated dissent.

Mrs. White: With great respect, it has. It would be useless to discuss further measures until the Gibraltar Government have had the opportunity to consider the Report to which I have referred.

Mr. Jackson: Can my hon. Friend say specifically about the Gibraltar territory what progress has been made in rehousing refugees from the Campo area and whether it is intended to accelerate those plans?

Mrs. White: Yes, Sir. The Gibraltar Government have speeded up their housing programme, with assistance from the British Government, and it is expected that all refugees will be in permanent accommodation before the end of this year.

Lord Balniel: Can the hon. Lady say what response there has been from the Spanish Government to the United Nations resolution calling for talks between our Government and the Spanish Government and the declared British intention to hold talks provided that the restrictions on the frontier are withdrawn? Surely we must be able to undertake some political initiative to bring this deplorable dispute to an early end.

Mrs. White: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is fully aware that questions about our relations with Spain should be addressed to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. George Jeger: My hon. Friend has referred to the assistance which has been given to and gladly received by the Gibraltar Government. However, is she aware that what is needed is the stimulation of the trade of the ordinary trading community in Gibraltar which the res-

trictions imposed by the Spanish Government have hit very hard?

Mrs. White: We are well aware of the difficulties caused to Gibraltar by these restrictions and the object of the Gibraltar Study Group was in part to consider possible reorientation of Gibraltar's trade.

Employment and United Kingdom Entry Permits

Mr. Wall: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if she is aware that it is now easier for Spanish nationals to enter this country than for Gibraltarians; and what steps she is taking to redress this anomaly and to provide financial support for more employment in Gibraltar.

Mrs. White: The systems of control over the immigration of aliens and Commonwealth citizens are not directly comparable, but in general the control exercised under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, is the more generous. I am informed that there is no difficulty in obtaining employment in Gibraltar.

Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Lady aware that for Gibraltarians there is great delay in obtaining entry permits to this country, a delay which does not seem to apply to Spanish citizens who seem to be allowed work permits whenever they ask for them? Is she aware that one or two instances about immigration into this country are causing alarm and despondency in Gibraltar?

Mrs. White: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular instances which he would like to draw to our attention, I would be happy to receive details.

Mr. David Griffiths: Would not my hon. Friend be much happier, as I would, if hon. Members on both sides of the House were more interested in their own constituency affairs than in Gibraltar?

Mrs. White: I could not entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. I have to give considerable thought not only to my own constituency but to Gibraltar.

Sir F. Bennett: The hon. Lady did not say anything about additional economic assistance. Is she aware that since she last spoke on the subject the position


has become much worse, as Spanish citizens working in Gibraltar are not allowed to spend any of their earnings there but have to take the whole lot back to Spain?

Mrs. White: I am well aware of these extremely tiresome restrictions, but, as I said earlier, we hope to receive from the Government of Gibraltar new proposals when that Government has studied the report of its study group.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH ARABIA

Independence

Mr. Fisher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to grant independence to South Arabia, either as a Federation or as a unitary State, by 1968; and whether she has yet received the report by Sir Ralph Hone and Sir Gawain Bell on the Federal Constitution.

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as the result of the recent visit to London of the delegation from the Federation of South Arabia led by the Minister by External Affairs, progress has been made in devising a new constitution in preparation for the independence of the Federation and providing for the accession to the Federation of the Eastern Protectorate States; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. White: The Ministerial delegation from the Federation of South Arbia recently in London came for financial discussions. During the talks the Federal Ministers told us that their Government expected to receive later this month the report of Sir Ralph Hone and Sir Gawain Bell, whom it had appointed to advise it on future constitutional development. My noble Friend informed the Ministers that the British Government were eagerly awaiting the publication of the report and meanwhile had no constitutional proposals of their own under consideration. It remains the policy of the British Government to bring the whole of South Arabia to independence as a single Sovereign State by 1968.

Mr. Fisher: Can the hon. Lady say what practical steps her Department is

taking to try to reconcile the views of the Aden politicians and the Protectorate Rulers so that South Arabia can go forward united to become an independent country?

Mrs. White: The object of the investigation into the constitutional proposals initiated by the Federal Supreme Council includes Aden as well as the Protectorate and, therefore, we hope that these proposals will meet the needs of all the territories of South Arabia,

Sir P. Agnew: In view of the growing power and influence of Saudi Arabia, as evidenced by the activities of King Feisal, is it not of special importance that the Government here should press on with achieving a stable solution for South Arabia which will leave it to take its full share in the life of the Southern Arabian Peninsula?

Mrs. White: We very much hope that these proposals will be the basis for an agreed constitution which will have that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI

Suva Prison

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for the rebuilding of Her Majesty's Prison in Suva, Fiji.

Mrs. White: The Suva prison will not be rebuilt, but a modern prison complex is being planned 15 miles from Suva at Namboro. The first stage, the prison farm for young offenders, was completed last year.

Dame Joan Vickers: While thanking the hon. Lady for this reply, may I ask whether this prison is to be completely demolished and a new one built and what is to happen to the women prisoners in future?

Mrs. White: As I understand it, there are no women prisoners in Suva; they are all at Lautoka. I hope that the prison will be demolished when the new prison to which I have referred has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY

Colony's Name

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if she will rename the new Colony which was recently set up for military purposes and which includes islands formerly administered with the Seychelles and with Mauritius, in view of the offence given by the name British Indian Ocean Territory both in India and elsewhere.

Mrs. White: No, Sir. I have no reason to think that the name has given offence.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Might I suggest to my hon. Friend that she asks some of the Indian Ministers, who have expressed very great concern and feel that this name is provocative? Does this not show a singular lack of imagination? Why could not these islands have been left with their original names? What is the point of this rather provocative title?

Mrs. White: I cannot see anything provocative in this. If my hon. Friend will get his mental hyphens correct, he will see that the hyphen comes between Indian and Ocean and not between British and Indian. As for using the names of islands, there are 12 main islands or groups of islets and some kind of collective nomenclature was essential.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEEWARD AND WINDWARD ISLANDS

Administrators (Emoluments)

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the revision of the emoluments of administrators temporarily granted in 1960 will be settled; whether it will include increased staff for administrators doing the work of governors without sufficient staff; and, in view of the climate in the Caribbean, whether it will include replacement of rotting furniture in public rooms of Government Houses and amenities such as air conditioning now to be found in less important official buildings.

Mrs. White: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to administrators of the Leeward and Windward Islands. Their

emoluments are in no sense temporary. There has been legislative provision for them since 1960. The revision of these emoluments now in train will be subject to the concurrence of the Governments and Legislatures of the territories. The staff of administrators and the amenities of their residences are also matters for these Governments.

Sir W. Teeling: Does the hon. Lady realise that it is nearly six years since this problem arose and that these wretched men have to carry on as if they were governors, with depleted staffs, especially at the time of the Queen's visit there? Is she aware that it is costing an immense amount of money and causing a lot of difficulty regarding the furniture in these Government houses, for which they have no means? Does she not agree that we must do something about this?

Mrs. White: I am very sorry, but it is not part of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government. I have already dealt with some of those points in a Written Answer to the hon. Gentleman last week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARIBBEAN

Primary Schools

Mr. Marten: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether she will speed up the provision of primary school accommodation in the Caribbean islands.

Mrs. White: I share the hon. Member's concern and will do what I can to hasten the necessary improvements. But school improvements are normally financed from colonial development and welfare funds, and it is for each territorial Government to plan the spending of its allocation.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that reply. Are the Government aware of the situation in which many primary schools in the Caribbean have 400 children, divided into 10 classes and educated in one room? Is the Minister aware that this is greatly retarding their education? Could we not put a much greater effort to help these very loyal and intelligent people?

Mrs. White: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and I quite agree that the


conditions in some of the schools are deplorable. An educational adviser and a public works engineer will be on the staff of the new Caribbean Division of the Overseas Development Ministry and I hope that they will be able to assist the islands' Governments in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Wages, Salaries, Prices and Gross National Product

Mr. Higgins: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what percentage increase his Department forecasts for the next six months in wages and salaries, prices, and in gross national product.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): A good deal of authoritative information is already available about the general trends of the economy. It is not customary for Governments to give in addition short-term forecasts of the likely movement of particular indicators.

Mr. Higgins: While appreciating that the First Secretary may have been deterred by the inaccuracy of his forecast of mortgage rates, would this kind of forecast not be helpful in appraising whether we are likely to achieve the targets in the National Plan? Is he satisfied with the performance to date?

Mr. Brown: The answer to the question is "No, Sir, it would not be helpful".

Mr. Biffen: Can the First Secretary say whether the evidence that he has about the likely trends in the gross national product make it necessary for him to revise the 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. norm which guides his prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Brown: No. I would not have thought that at the moment, but, as I have said so many times, this will, of course, be kept under review by the National Economic Development Council, by both sides of industry and by Her Majesty's Government. There is no reason at the moment to make any revision.

Mr. William Clark: Can the First Secretary say how it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that prices would continue to go up until the spring and then possibly the rate would decrease?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman wants to address a question to the Chancellor he ought to address it to him.

Regional Planning (Railway Services)

Mr. Armstrong: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that regional economic planning councils are giving consideration to the contribution to be made by railway services in the replanning of industry in areas where basic industries have declined; and if such consideration includes the power to recommend the re-opening, where necessary, of railways now closed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): The councils already take into account these considerations and are not restricted in the recommendations they may make.

Mr. Armstrong: Is my hon. Friend aware that the success of the Government's policy in attracting new industry to these areas has made the decision of the last Administration in closing railways in my constituency quite out of date? Is he further aware that this is a very urgent matter because we are expecting the Government's policy to be even more successful?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, we fully understand my hon. Friend's concern and we are fully aware of the important contribution which the railways can make to economic growth.

Mr. Rhodes: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he has taken to ensure that his plans for the economic development of central Scotland and north-east England are not impeded by the non-development of the east coast railway line connecting these areas, as proposed in Map No. 21 of the British Railways Board's publication, The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes.

Mr. William Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is aware of the Board's views and of the need to relate the future of this line to regional economic plans. The Scottish and Northern Economic Planning Councils will be watching the position.

Mr. Rhodes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this railway line between Newcastle and Edinburgh links two vitally important and, we hope, expanding cities, and, in the opinion of many local people, the proposal of the Railways Board not to develop the line is in complete contradiction to the economic policies being pursued by the First Secretary of State?

Mr. Rodgers: We shall certainly bear in mind all opinions expressed in the regions.

Motor Industry

Mr. Hattersley: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking to set up an economic development council for the motor industry.

Mr. George Brown: This matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Hattersley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people hope that the motor industry will meet and surpass the targets of the National Plan? Will he regard this as a matter of great urgency? Will he also bear in mind the necessity of including within the terms of reference of this body the many subsidiary manufacturers who play an important part in the motor manufacturing industry?

Mr. Brown: Yes, indeed. A number of issues ought to be taken seriously into account, and if my hon. Friend would be good enough to leave it with us a little longer, I think we can work it out the way he wants us to.

National Board for Prices and Incomes

Mr. Mawby: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to grant the National Board for Prices and Incomes similar powers to those of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: The rôle and powers of the National Board are entirely different from those of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, and it is not our intention to make them similar.

Mr. Mawby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must face up to the inevitable consequences of having a Prices and Incomes Board and that if one continues just to express pious hopes and to ask people to be good boys, if there are no sanctions the Board will lose any influence which it ever had?

Mr. Brown: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman on my side. Perhaps he will address what he has said to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).

Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman confusing—I am not sure whether he is—the Industrial Court with the old Industrial Disputes Tribunal, which, unless my memory has gone wrong, was abolished? The point surely is that there is an element of compulsory arbitration by reference in the different references which he is making to the Prices and Incomes Board.

Mr. Brown: I am not confused, but clearly the right hon. Gentleman is. The Question refers to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, which, I remember very well, began under Order 1305 and then moved up. I answered the Question in the form in which it was put down. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to put something else down, he should by all means do so.

Water Rates

Mr. Dean: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in view of the concern felt at the proposed increase in water rates, he will refer this matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: I do not consider this is called for.

Mr. Dean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increases proposed by the Bristol Waterworks Company and other waterworks companies are largely the result of higher taxation imposed by this Government? Does he think it fair that these companies should "carry the


can" for increases which are largely the result of Government policy?

Mr. Brown: The water companies are not "carrying the can" for anything for which we are responsible. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter a little more closely, he will realise that we have taken steps which his right hon. and hon. Friends did not take. I do not think that the proposal which he makes in his Question would help.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why is the right hon. Gentleman just as hard-hearted as the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Surely he realises that this iniquitous rise in rates is falling on those least able to bear it—the old-age pensioners?

Mr. Brown: I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. The answer to the firs, part of his supplementary question is: because we always move in tandem.

Mr. Barber: Surely the First Secretary realises that the reason for the increase in rates is primarily due to the changes which were made in the Corporation Tax, as was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should put that Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let him by all means do so.

Bread and Confectionery

Mr. Hamling: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he is aware that the price of bread is rising although the price of wheat has fallen and that the multiple bakeries largely buy wheat for themselves; and whether he will again ask the National Board for Prices and Incomes to investigate the price of bread and confectionery in relation to the price of flour and the profits of the milling industry.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much resentment among farmers over the fact that the price of bread has doubled in the last ten years—nine years under the last lot—and that their own income has suffered during that period?

Mr. Brown: I have that very much in mind, but I do not think that what my

hon. Friend asks would achieve the end he has in view.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when most of the industry co-operated with him in keeping down the price of bread for a much longer period than normally he could have expected, he found it necessary to condemn certain firms when they acted only a week before the Report came out and their action was backed up by the Board?

Mr. Brown: That has no relation to the Question on the Order Paper, but the answer is: because they broke their word.

Coal and Coke

Mr. Varley: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer the distribution and retail coal and coke trade to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for examination.

Mr. George Brown: Not at present.

Mr. Varley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the retail prices of coal and coke have increased by about 12 per cent. over the last 12 months? Does he appreciate that this is undermining the position which has been maintained by the National Coal Board in stabilising its pithead prices for the last five years? Will he have another look at this?

Mr. Brown: I will have another look at it, but I think that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that the right time to have another look at it is after we have the report on the reference concerning the National Coal Board.

Beer

Mr. Alison: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the National Board for Prices and Incomes will complete its consideration of the proposal announced by brewers to increase the price of beer, which he has referred to the Board.

Mr. George Brown: The Board has been asked to report by the end of March.

Mr. Alison: Is the First Secretary aware that the Carlisle State Brewery put up the price of beer by a penny a pint


as recently as last November without intervention by the Prices and Incomes Board? This is about a 10 per cent. increase. Will he cause the Carlisle State Brewery to reduce the price of beer by 1d. a pint pending the findings of the Board?

Mr. Brown: All my visits to the Carlisle State Brewery experiment—despite the fact that geographically, although not electorally, my constituency includes Burton—lead me to say that I think that it is a very good experiment indeed.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Alison: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

s.s. "Lakonia" (Loss)

Sir R. Thompson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the conclusions of the Greek Committee of Inquiry for Maritime Accidents into the "Lakonia" disaster, including the finding that rescue ships, some of which were British, did not assist with their own life-saving apparatus or approach sufficiently closely; and what action he will take in the matter.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): The only British ship which was in a position to play a major part in the rescue operations was the "Montcalm", and my information is that her actions were irreproachable. Under Greek law this matter now goes to a superior court for further consideration, and I am taking steps to bring to its notice our disagreement with the findings of the Committee of Inquiry in relation to British rescue ships.

Sir R. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the great satisfaction of those of my constituents who were survivors with the tone of his Answer? Will he make sure, as much as lies in his power, that this disgraceful slur on our seamen is not allowed to go unchallenged?

Mr. Mason: Most certainly. Let no one in the House or anyone outside it be under any illusion, especially those who may have been affected by this accident, that representations in the tone that I have used in the House will be made to the superior Greek court.

United States and Canada (Motor Car Imports)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the United States Government's request for a waiver to Article 1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in respect of United States imports of motor cars from Canada.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): A waiver was granted by the contracting parties last December, allowing the Government of the United States to remove their import duties on motor vehicles and component parts made in Canada. With the support of the United Kingdom Government safeguards were inserted to ensure that, if at any time the contracting parties find that action under the waiver has caused or imminently threatens, a significant diversion of trade in any of the products concerned to Canadian sources, the waiver will lapse in respect of those products.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arranging of a special tariff privilege between Canada and the United States is bound to lead to the diversion of trade?

Mr. Jay: That is debatable. But we made it perfectly clear to the United States Government that we did not like this arrangement and that we would have much preferred to see the tariff on all imported cars removed altogether. We withdrew our opposition to this arrangement only on a number of conditions.

Industrial Development Certificates

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage the Midland, London and South-East, Eastern and Southern Regions, on the one hand, and Scotland,


Wales, the Northern and North-Western Regions, on the other, obtained of the total area of industrial development certificate approvals for Great Britain in the year ended December, 1965, compared with the average for the five years ended December, 1964.

Mr. Jay: For the Midland, London and South-Eastern, Eastern and Southern Regions, 30 per cent. in 1965 compared with an average of 40 per cent, for the previous five years. For Scotland, Wales, the North and North-Western Regions, nearly 50 per cent. in 1965, compared with an average of 39 per cent. for the previous five years.

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that Members on this side of the House will be very gratified at the Minister's reply. It is a clear and convincing—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must come to his question.

Mr. Thomas: I am coming to the question. While it is gratifying to hear of the expansion—

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the expansion which he has indicated, the enlargement of the development areas recently has caused great fears to arise in the minds of those Members who represent former development districts?

Mr. Jay: We have secured in the past year exactly what we sought—a large increase in the share of industrial development going to the under-employed regions and more restraint in the congested regions.

Local Unemployment

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation for the provision of wider powers to deal with local unemployment problems.

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. The Government's proposals were outlined in the White Paper on Investment Incentives.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the proposals will deal with the difficulties of areas where problems arise as a result of

depopulation? Will he give an assurance that when he announces his legislation, he will also announce the next batch of advance factories which have been promised exclusively for coalmining areas which will suffer from expedited mine closures?

Mr. Jay: I am not sure whether I can promise an exact coincidence of dates, but I assure my hon. Friend that the proposals generally will have regard to depopulation and other factors as well as to unemployment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the forthcoming legislation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers be entirely a Board of Trade Bill, or will part of it be in the Finance Bill in due course?

Mr. Jay: There will be a Board of Trade Bill which will cover both what are normally called local employment powers and the investment incentives as well. There may be consequential effects on the Finance Bill.

Clacton-on-Sea (Industrial Development Certificate)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he prevented the Phillips Drill Company from coming to Clacton-on-Sea.

Mr. Jay: After examination of the company's application for an industrial development certificate at Clacton, I decided that the development could not be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why are the Government so determined to ignore market forces for the sake of economic political planning? Surely it is scandalous to add 70 to 80 per cent. to the capital costs of this firm, which will be engaged in the export trade.

Mr. Jay: I examined this case carefully. As the firm purposes to do a great deal of business with the E.F.T.A. countries, it is at least reasonable that it should examine locations on the North-East Coast as well as in the hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Public and Private Companies (Auditors)

Mr. Hamling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to provide for the independence of auditors in public and private companies.

Mr. Jay: The auditor of any company other than an exempt private company is already required to be independent. As for exempt private companies, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Companies Bill which was introduced yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Museums (Industrial Archaeology)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to increase the facilities at museums in his charge for the conservation and display of the products of industrial archaeology.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): The conservation and display of objects of this kind, provided they are appropriate in size and character, is the main and continuing function of the Science Museum, whose collections are steadily increasing.

Historic Buildings

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what facilities exist in his Department for the study of historic buildings and their amenities.

Miss Lee: As I told the hon. Member on 20th May, responsibility for these matters does not rest with my Department.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Lady published a White Paper "A Policy for the Arts—the First Steps" in which historic buildings figure very largely. How does she hope to establish her special responsibilities if half the field remains covered by another Government Department?

Miss Lee: I recognise the point made by the hon. Member. There may be a case a little later for further co-ordination of all these activities. At the moment,

the Ministry of Public Building and Works is doing a very good job in connection with ancient and historic buildings. As yet, however, this is only a first step and better co-ordination will be considered.

School-Leaving Age

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to announce his plans for the provision of the additional buildings and teachers which will be required for the raising of the school-leaving age in 1970.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): My right hon. Friend will shortly be notifying authorities of his plans for providing the buildings necessary for raising the school-leaving age. In addition, the fourteen-point programme for increasing the supply of teachers which my right hon. Friend announced in April 1965 is being kept under continuous review and progress will be reported from time to time. This programme, which is intended to reinforce the general staffing of the schools, should help them to accept the additional commitment of a higher leaving age and subsequently to resume progress towards better staffing standards and smaller classes.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that that answer will give universal satisfaction, certainly in educational circles? Does it mean that there is a quite firm refusal to retreat from the decision to raise the school-leaving age in 1970 despite the economic circumstances that could possibly prevail at the time the decision has to be implemented?

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has recently made it clear publicly that such is the position.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that in the London Borough of Bromley, the expansion plans of the Stockwell College of Teacher Training have been severely hampered by the recent check? Will he look into this?

Mr. Redhead: If the hon. Member cares to put down a Question on that point, we will deal with it.

Primary School, Wivenhoe

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the new primary school in Wivenhoe will now be completed, in view of the delay in starting.

Mr. Redhead: The Essex Local Education Authority expects to take this school into use in June.

Independent Education

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give an estimate of the number of children receiving independent education in England and Wales who have parents living overseas.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has no information on which he could base such an estimate.

Mr. Turton: Does not the Minister agree that it is important that he should have this information if he is to get a proper evaluation of the part that independent education can play?

Mr. Redhead: I can only answer as to the present position concerning the lack of information on which to provide such an estimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (SPEECH)

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies at Wolverhampton on Saturday, 18th December, 1965, about economic matters, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Can the Prime Minister say that the remarks which his right hon. Friend then made about the state of the economy still apply?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure to which particular remarks the hon. Member is referring. If he will tell me which remark he has in mind, I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to appoint a Minister to co-ordinate the activities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Public Building and Works.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer he gave to a similar Question on Tuesday, in which he included the statement that brick stocks two years ago were higher than they are today, is quite untrue and is not borne out by figures issued by his own Ministers? Is he also aware that whatever might have been the figures in past years, when severe climatic conditions prevailed, has no relevance to a situation which has been created by the Minister of Public Building and Works in exhorting builders to increase their capacity while the Minister of Housing was damping down building?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having the prescience to put down a Question which enabled him to put the first part of his supplementary question. What I had in mind was three years ago. I will certainly look up the figures and give the right hon. Gentleman a reply on that point.
As to brick stocks and the housing situation, we went over this matter thoroughly on Tuesday and on Monday as well. The position is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that a year earlier we were acutely short of bricks and that this fact held up housing at that time. The situation has now been put right and we are now poised to go forward. In addition the acute shortage of labour which made the fulfilment of the previous target impossible has been improved, if not put right. This will now permit us to go forward to our target of half a million houses a year.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: As it is always being quoted that the country has only a 21 days' supply of bricks, can the Prime Minister give the figure in terms of the number of days' supply of bricks which the planners must have?

The Prime Minister: Having spent a lot of time on this problem in the immediate pre-war situation, my recollection is that the number of bricks that are needed and that we are likely to have varies so enormously through changes in weather that it is impossible to have any set figure of what the brick stocks should be. But a 21 days' stock is better for getting houses built than a complete absence of bricks such as we had 15 months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA (FAMINE RELIEF)

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for famine relief for East and Central Africa.

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on British aid for drought relief in Rhodesia.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in connection with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for relieving the consequences of drought in East and Central Africa.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 27th January to a Question by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).

Mr. Fraser: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on one of the greatest nonevents organised even by him? Will he now do something to help where there is a shortage and famine? Will he authorise the Bank of England to release to Rhodesia the£8,000 or more of Oxfam money which has been collected in this country?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's opening words show the level to which public comment on that side of the House has fallen—

Mr. Fraser: May I hand this paper to the right hon. Gentleman? Can it be passed across to him?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should conduct himself in an orderly way.

The Prime Minister: —if he deals with a serious and grave humanitarian problem with that kind of remark. The position as I explained, and as it was more fully explained by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in a Written Answer yesterday, is that we have given a great deal of help in the case of Bechuanaland. In the case of Basutoland, we are about to start a new and important programme. In the case of Rhodesia, the information which has reached us suggests that the situation with regard to food supplies for the human population there is not critical but may become so, in which case we will take action to deal with it as soon as the crop figures are known. With regard to Zambia, we were promised by last weekend a statement of requirements but it has not come yet. We shall take action as soon as we get it.

Mr. Wall: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although these activities did receive great publicity, nothing has been done as far as Rhodesia is concerned? Matabeleland is now suffering its fourth year of drought. Will the Prime Minister take action to prevent African people dying there in the near future?

The Prime Minister: We took immediate steps to see what were the requirements in Rhodesia, in spite of some scathing remarks of Mr. Smith about this exercise and his unwillingness to co-operate in working out what was required. We have got information suggesting that with the recent fall of rains there is no immediate crisis so far as foodstuffs are concerned. We shall hear from the Governor what requirements there are and we shall take immediate steps to see that supplies get there.

Mr. Blakey: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's plans were announced at the time as an emergency operation which was vitally necessary? In addition to what was already planned under previous programmes, how many extra tons of food have actually arrived on the ground in Africa in the last month?

The Prime Minister: So far as Bechuanaland is concerned, we are at the present time feeding 105,000 out of a population of 540,000. So far as the others are concerned, we have asked immediately and urgently for requirements so that we can meet them. When we have those requirements, we will deal with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SPACE AUTHORITY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a British Space Authority to co-ordinate the British national space programme.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that British space activities are lagging behind those of some of the other European countries? Does he not think that to set up a space authority on the lines of the American space authority would lead to more efficiency and co-ordnation in this important sphere.

The Prime Minister: This is a very complicated set of programmes, and there are a number of different departments concerned. I have been into it closely, and I think that the arrangements made by the previous Government for departmental responsibilities were right and wise, and we have followed them. I would change them if I thought that it was necessary.
As regards our space activities, I do not agree that they are lagging behind other European countries. I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that costs are not lagging.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIAN SUGAR SHIPMENT

Mr. Stainton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the 10,000 tons of Rhodesian sugar refused by the United States of America has been taken into bonded store in Hamburg; and what representations he has made to the West German Government regarding this act and the ultimate disposal of the sugar.

The Prime Minister: I understand that the sugar in question remains in a bonded warehouse in Hamburg. The Federal German Government, who have banned the import of sugar from Rhodesia, have said that there is no possibility of the consignment being imported into the territory of the Federal Republic.

Mr. Stainton: Could the Prime Minister tell the House how it was that this sugar was landed at Hamburg? In spite of the fact that it is a free port, it comes under Germany and the West German

Government. Secondly, without holding out any consolation to German speculators in the matter, does he appreciate their disquiet at the fact that a large quantity of foodstuffs can be neutralised at a time when famine is rampant in certain parts of the world, excluding Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that there was very much of a famine in sugar at present. If the hon. Gentleman studies the commodity market for sugar he will find that my remarks are borne out. The ship, the "Pericles", went to the United States and all over Europe looking for a home, eventually arriving at Hamburg, and the West German Government saw no reason to stop the landing of the sugar. Certainly they have not allowed it to be taken into sale for consumption.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST REGION

Mr. John Wells: asked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will make an early review of the problems of the area south-east of the Thames, particularly the problems of communication, education and medical care and the added burdens imposed on the area by government.

The Prime Minister: The South-East Economic Planning Council, whose appointment my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State will announce shortly, will advise the Government on the region's broad economic and planning problems.

Mr. Wells: Will the council take note of the grave difficulties in the area created by the Government's ban on industrial and commercial building within 40 miles of London, which has caused an increase in the number of commuters rather than a decrease? Our telephone service and postal service in the South-East are on the verge of a break-down, and education services have been slashed as never before, despite a growth in the school population. In addition, the hospital services are gravely short of cash for beds. Will the council look at all these problems?

The Prime Minister: The council will be empowered to look at all these problems. So far as the cutting of office


building is concerned, I should have thought that it would help to relieve congestion in the area and help to relieve pressure on commuter services. The number of commuters has increased by many thousands a year owing to the overbuilding of offices in London.

Mr. Boston: Is the Prime Minister aware that there was widespread dissatisfaction in Kent and other parts of the South-East with the last Government's South-East Study, because certain places have been totally ignored in that study, and that there is very considerable satisfaction, especially in Kent, that some of the places then ignored are now being considered?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I seem to remember these arguments being successfully deployed in a by-election in Faversham two years ago.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Prime Minister say how many official and semi-official bodies there are in the South-East concerned with problems of planning and communications and what steps the Government are taking to co-ordinate them?

The Prime Minister: I would not like to answer that without notice. One of the most important things in this region, as in any other, is to see that there is an overall body looking at problems of the area as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS AND MINISTRIES (TITLES)

Q.8. Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to bring up to date the titles of Ministers and Ministries.

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend has any particular suggestions in mind, I would be glad to consider them.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that some of the titles are rather antiquated? For instance, would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and the Postmaster-General be better referred to as "the Minister for Finance", "the Minister for Trade", and "the Minister for Communications"? In view of the fact that he is likely to be in office for many years to come, will he look at this again?

The Prime Minister: I must confess that I have a certain sentimental, not to say conservative, approach to this and many other problems. As a former President of the Board of Trade, even if the Board meets so infrequently, I have a feeling that it is the right title to perpetuate. The same is probably true of the other offices. But, of course, this matter can be kept under review over the years.

Sir D. Renton: Could the right hon. Gentleman find a title to describe the duties which the Paymaster-General fails to perform?

The Prime Minister: I have thought a lot about the title "Paymaster-General" and I have studied his duties. I have also studied the record of some of his predecessors, who are still sitting on the opposite benches. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that it is usual to have non-departmental Ministers without specific duties assigned to them and it is not usual to describe in detail all the duties that they perform. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that my right hon. Friend certainly works extremely hard on the duties that he performs extremely successfully, and, unlike his Tory predecessors, as a non-departmental Minister he is not employed at public expense on party duties. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting away from the Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA (PUBLIC SERVANTS)

Mr. Taverne: asked the Prime Minister if he will now offer compensation to any public servants in Rhodesia who help to bring the rebellion to an end and as a result suffer financially or otherwise.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, because to do so would be inconsistent with the advice we have given to Rhodesian public servants that they should, where their consciences permit, remain at their posts and play their part in the maintenance of law and order. Arrangements of course already exist to provide assistance to Rhodesian public servants who resign on grounds of conscience or who are


suspended or dismissed by the illegal régime because they refuse to support it or carry out unlawful orders.

Mr. Taverne: Could not the offer which has already been made in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations be added to, and payments made in Rhodesia to people who are actually out of a job while the rebellion still lasts? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that that could be of the greatest importance in ending the rebellion soon, and is he satisfied that sufficient publicity has been given to the Secretary of State's offer?

The Prime Minister: I have dealt with this a number of times in the past. We have all agreed that it is very difficult to know what is the right thing to do. We are paying salaries in some cases where public servants have felt unable to carry on for one of the reasons stated. I do not think that it would be helpful to give too much publicity to individual cases because of possible reactions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government on housing policy at Hull on 25th January represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend indicated a willingness to bring forward proposals to help home ownership only when the economic situation justified them, may I ask whether that is a withdrawal from the firm undertaking given to announce them this Session?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend said that we were going to bring them forward when the economic situation justified it, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the economic situation will probably justify it this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILVERWOOD COLLIERY (ACCIDENT)

Mr. David Griffiths: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement as to the latest position on the accident which occurred at Silverwood Colliery, Yorkshire.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): I regret to have to inform the House that at eight o'clock this morning there was an accident at Silverwood Colliery, near Rotherham, involving an underground man-riding train. As a result nine men were killed and one seriously injured.
Investigations are proceeding and I am awaiting a further report from H.M. Divisional Inspector of Mines.
I should like to express my deep sympathy to the relatives and friends of the men who have been killed or injured.

Mr. Griffiths: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and add my condolences to the bereaved families of these unfortunate men.
This is another example of the price which has to be paid for coal. It should be thoroughly understood by hon. Members on both sides that, regardless of the safety precautions which are put on the Statute Book, the fact remains that this is the most dangerous and arduous occupation in the whole word.

Mr. Peyton: I should like to associate this side of the House with the expression of sympathy by the right hon. Gentleman to the relatives of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident, and, of course, also to those who were injured.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill.

Motions on the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme, and the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Scheme.

TUESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which, if the House agrees, will be taken formally.

Debate on the Situation in South and South-East Asia, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Church of England Convocations Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

There will be a debate on the National Health Service, which it is thought may last until about seven o'clock, followed by subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.

Motion on the Commonwealth Teachers (Extension of Financial Authority) Order.

THURSDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Road Safety Bill.

FRIDAY,11TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Remaining stages of the National Health Service Bill and of the Universities (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the debate on the Adjournment on Tuesday we would wish to be able to discuss the affairs of the Indian sub-continent? Secondly, can he provide time for a debate on the proposals announced yesterday for a Home Defence Force before the Defence White Paper is published?

Mr. Bowden: On the second point, perhaps we had better have discussions through the usual channels. On the first point, the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the wording was "South and South-East Asia".

Mr. Victor Yates: In view of the rather serious revelations which have been made by the Chief Constable of Durham, will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Home Secretary to make a statement on this matter and the security of Durham Prison?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir. This would have been in order in the debate yester-

day had the statement been made in time. I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during business questions last week he was asked about the Government's intentions with regard to the six-month postponement of starts. This is a matter of great importance which affects every local authority, and the road programme. Can he give a definite date on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement to the House?

Mr. Bowden: It is my right hon. Friend's intention to make a statement early next week. I shall not commit myself to Monday or Tuesday, but it will probably be on Tuesday.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen Motion No. 67, which has now been signed by more than 100 Members?

[That this House views with concern the concentration of advertisement placing, both commercial and official, in fewer and fewer newspapers, to the detriment of the others; draws the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the statement by the President of the Advertising Association, Lord Robens, in the Sunday Citizen on 12th December, 1965, that advertising revenue forms a substantial part of the income of newspapers and periodicals and that advertisers, with their large stake in the fortunes of the Press, must therefore bear some responsibility for maintaining its variety and vigour; and calls upon all national advertisers, including Her Majesty's Government, so to diversify a proportion of their advertising as to make a significant contribution to ensuring the independence of existing newspapers and periodicals and an increasing freedom of choice for the public.]

Can my right hon. Friend hold out any prospects of a debate on this matter?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot promise time for a debate. This question of advertisement placing and independence of the Press was considered by the Royal Commission in 1961–62, and I think that perhaps the normal opportunities available to Members ought to be taken if there is any desire for a debate.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the indication given yesterday by the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a report on his discussions in America and Australasia on his return on Sunday? May we take it that this means we shall be having a statement from his early next week?

Mr. Bowden: I am not clear when the statement will be made, but I will certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Warbey: As the Opposition are now running away from a debate on Vietnam, and are seeking once again to submerge this critical and grave issue in a much wider and broader debate, and in view of their past responsibility for the tragic situation in Indo-China, can my right hon. Friend say when we are to have a debate in which we can concentrate our attention on the really key issues and dangerous developments which are taking place in the Indo-China peninsula?

Mr. Bowden: I should have thought that a debate on South and South-East Asia would include Vietnam. It was chosen by the Opposition for a Supply day next week. In the interests of the House, perhaps I might point out that it is exactly nine Parliamentary days since we had a debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Chancellor's statement next week will cover the home loans scheme of local authorities as well as other matters?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot do so without consulting my right hon. Friend, but I will do so.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion No. 70, which refers to Parliamentary Questions on the London Transport Board?

[That this House believes that the Minister of Transport should answer Questions concerning the day-to-day working of the London Transport Board.]—

and the proposed Amendment to that Motion, in the name of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker)—

[Line 3, at end add "and of British Railways as was the practice during the last war, with efficient and convenient results for all concerned".]

In view of the great public interest in transport at this time, will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a debate on the Motion?

Mr. Bowden: This is one of those difficult cases in which there is no Government responsibility. This applies to a nationalised industry and its day-to-day activities. I appreciate the importance of the matter, but I cannot promise time at present.

Mr. Sandys: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen Motion No. 91, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) and about 50 other hon. Members?

[That this House deplores the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham on 31st January designed, it would seem, to offer comfort to the rebel régime of Mr. Smith, insult African Commonwealth countries and delay the return to constitutional rule in Rhodesia.]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give time to have this Motion debated? It is entitled "Aiding the Rebels", and makes some very grave accusations against myself, amounting almost to a charge of treason. As my honour and loyalty to the Crown are directly impugned, it seems only fair that an opportunity should be given for the hon. Members concerned to substantiate their charges and for me to reply.

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is one Order—and there may be two—on Rhodesia which has to be debated before, I think. 21st February. I am prepared, through the usual channels, to discuss whether the debate should be wider than that, and take a little more time than would normally be given to an Order, which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to make his points.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very good precedent for this in the case of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey),


exactly a year ago, and that on that occasion the Lord President of the Council said:
I think that the House has a right, as my hon. Friend"—
that is, the hon. Member for Ashfield—
is of opinion that his honour and integrity have been impugned, to voice its opinion on this.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 619.]
Considering that the charges made against me are incomparably more serious, I see no reason why there should not be an opportunity for the House to express itself on this issue—and not by way of incidental speeches as part of a debate on another subject.

Mr. Bowden: I do not think that we can discuss this matter across the Floor of the House. We had better discuss it through the usual channels, in the normal way.

Mr. Heath: We must press the Leader of the House further on this. There is a perfectly clear precedent in the case of the hon. Member whose honour was impugned. The Leader of the House set the precedent himself. He must agree to this request. Time must be found to discuss this item on its own, and not mixed up with many other questions.

Mr. Bowden: I will certainly consider this question sympathetically and see what can be done, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is considerable pressure on Parliamentary time at the moment. It is not a question whether there should be a debate—I have already agreed that there should be—but let us decide the date through the usual channels, in the normal way.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there will be a debate on this Motion, and not on something else?

Mr. Bowden: I am not committing myself to a debate on the Motion. I am committing myself to a debate on the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made, which has arisen from the Motion.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of hon. Members. It is exceedingly unsatisfactory that grave charges should be expressed in a Motion on the Order

Paper and that we should have no assurance that this matter will be discussed and that the hon. Member against whom the charges are made will have the opportunity of making a reply.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to the grave exchanges between the two right hon. Gentlemen but I am afraid that the issue is not one in which Mr. Speaker can express any opinion. It must be solved between the contending parties in the House, and is a matter for the Lord President of the Council and the usual channels.

Mr. Heath: I give notice to the Lord President of the Council that we shall wish to enter into discussions with him straight away about a specific debate on this point.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of sympathy on this side of the House for the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)? Would not a morning sitting be an admirable way of dealing with the matter?

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that last week the Minister of Fuel and Power answered a Question on gas prices, would it be in order, when we debate the Consolidated Fund Bill, to ask for a reply on the increase in electricity prices on the North-East Coast? This is a matter of great urgency.

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Lady will be aware that it is not for me to rule on questions of order, but if there is a Supplementary Estimate which is concerned with gas or the gas industry the point that she has raised would be in order.

Mr. Grimond: Does not the Leader of the House agree that among the matters to be raised this afternoon are matters which could usefully be debated at some stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill? Will he confirm that it is not the intention of the Government, or of official Motions, to remove from back benchers their traditional right to raise various matters which are of importance to them at some stage in our debates on that Measure, and that this stage should not be totally confined to the middle of the night?
There are many matters—including the question of the dissatisfaction of teachers in Scotland—which urgently require to be debated in the House, and the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill would seem to provide a suitable occasion on which to take up these matters.

Mr. Bowden: I would be the last one to question the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of procedure, but this Consolidated Fund Bill is concerned only with winter Supplementary Estimates. If there is a Supplementary Estimate which concerns the salaries of Scottish teachers —and I cannot recall one at the moment —it would be in order to raise that point.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern in Scotland about the conflicting statements recently made by the Government on the question of the Scottish economy? Will he find time to debate early day Motion No. 84, which draws attention to this and other problems?

[That this House notes with satisfaction that the social and industrial achievements under the Conservative Government are catalogued in The Scottish Economy, 1965–70, Command Paper No. 2864; deplores the dearth in the same document of constructive and specific plans for achieving further advance in Scotland; regrets the expected sharp decrease in the annual rate of expansion of public investment; and views with astonishment the conflict between this White Paper and Investment Incentives, Command Paper No. 2874, which removes free depreciation and investment allowances while substituting nothing for the service industries upon which the White Paper states that future development in Scotland largely depends.]

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be anxious to debate this White Paper. There are six Supply days in the Scottish Grand Committee and two on the Floor of the House. It is purely a question of deciding this matter in the normal way, through the usual channels.

Mr. Burden: May I draw attention to Motion No. 39, which appeared on the Order Paper before the Recess?

[That this House takes note of the Report of the Brambell Committee, congratulates them on the thoroughness of their investigation into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems, and urges Her Majesty's Government to arrange for an early debate on their recommendations.]

May I also refer the Leader of the House to the fact that he said that he would consider very sympathetically the possibility of arranging a debate after the Recess on the Brambell Report on the welfare of farm animals? As this is a matter of very great importance to many people, will he now give sympathetic consideration to it?

Mr. Bowden: I am aware of my promise before the Recess. There are two early opportunities on Private Members' Motions. Two private Members have chosen this subject. If their Motions are not reached we should have to consider the matter again.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 150 hon. Members have now signed the Motion concerning the inaccurate comments of the Prime Minister and the contempt that they have brought upon the House?

[That this House, recalling that on the Third Reading of the 1965 Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid tribute to the manner in which the debates throughout the Committee Stage had been conducted and said, The Opposition Front Bench have gone a good job on the Bill in the interests of everyone, and recalling that the Government moved 440 amendments to the 1965 Bill, regrets that in a speech to the Labour Party rally at the Albert Hall on Saturday, 29th January, the Prime Minister should have stated: We cannot afford the tomfoolery of last summer when urgently necessary measures to streamline the tax system were held up day after day and night after night and our narrow parliamentary majority irresponsibly exploited; and regrets that this completely inaccurate allegation serves only to bring Parliament into disrepute.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for the Prime Minister either to make an apology, or for the Motion to be debated?

Mr. Bowden: I can recall the occasion when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented upon "tomfoolery". Hon. Members will recall that in our debate on the very long Finance Bill last year, which involved a great deal of work, owing to the large number of Amendments, considerable progress was made on occasions, usually as a result of discussions through the usual channels and that, equally, on other occasions very little progress was made. For instance, there was an occasion in the early morning—at about one o'clock—on 7th July, when, as a result of a successful ambush, certain things took place and I was caught out myself. That could be regarded as tomfoolery.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the time for business questions, not debates.

Mr. John Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman again consider the possibility of finding time for a short debate on horticultural marketing?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Member is concerned, I think, about the Apples and Pears Development Council. This will be the subject of an affirmative Order which will have to be approved by this House.

Mr. Deedes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) has a point in calling attention to the fact that confusion will have been caused in the public mind by the statement of the Chief Constable of Durham. In view of that fact the Home Secretary might be well advised to make a statement next week, at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Bowden: I have already said that I will speak to my right hon. Friend about this.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department in Strasbourg? As this appears to take Government policy towards Europe several steps forward, does not he agree that it is time we debated the relations between this country and the Common

Market—especially since the last foreign affairs debate contained little material on this important subject?

Mr. Bowden: No doubt this is an important subject, but I cannot promise an early debate on it.

MEMBERS (CROSSING THE HOUSE)

Sir Frederic Bennett: On a point of order. I believe that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that I intended to raise a point of order this afternoon on a procedural matter.
Two days ago, when some of my hon. Friends and I entered the House, in response to a number of cries of "Order" from certain parts of the House you reproved a number of hon. Members and myself, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st February:
It is discourteous, and against the rules of the House, for Members to walk between a Minister and a questioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1966; Vol. 723, c 869.]
It had been my intention not to press this matter because, without any false feelings at all, you are aware, Mr. Speaker, how unbounded is our gratitude for the way in which you guide our counsels. But the following morning it was reported in the Press and it would seem to benefit all hon. Members that we should have an explanation of the rule about passing between a speaker and the Chair. It is for this reason alone that I ask you to clarify your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot comment on the report which appeared in the Press, but I want to deal with the point which the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) has raised. I am grateful to him for raising it so courteously, both in the House and privately. He has raised the issue with me in his customary courteous way.
This gives me the opportunity of correcting a clumsy and inaccurate Ruling which I made at Question Time on Tuesday, when the House was calling some hon. Members to order, and for the purposes of greater accuracy—to quote a well-known phrase—I want to state the position quite clearly and correct the


Ruling which I gave on Tuesday. The rule by the House is as follows:
…Members are not to cross between the Chair and a Member who is speaking from either of the two lower benches, or between the Chair and the table, or between the Chair and the Mace, when the Mace is taken off the Table by the Serjeant. When they cross the House, or otherwise leave their places, they should make obeisance to the Chair.
This is the full extent of the rule regarding crossing before Members who are speaking. I was not seeking and do not seek to extend the practice of the House any further in this matter. Hon. Members will find the appropriate reference in Erskine May on pages 459 and 460. Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay.

Sir F. Bennett: Further to that point of order. May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for a characteristically courteous and generous gesture to the House?

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: Mr. Robert Carr (Mitcham) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly please?

Mr. Carr: On a point of order. The Committee stage of this Bill was concluded on the eve of the Christmas Recess under the chairmanship of Dame Edith Pitt. Her chairmanship was firm, wise and friendly and, as a result, I think that all hon. Members on the Committee would agree that our work was enjoyable as well as, I hope, constructive.
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will understand that all of us who were on that Standing Committee feel a particular pang of sorrow and loss and would wish, before we go further with the Bill, to express our feelings in a very simple manner and our gratitude for the work which Dame Edith did and our tribute to her.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Further to that point of order. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, I should like to join in the very appropriate tribute made by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) to the memory of Dame Edith Pitt. We have the same happy recollections of her great contribution to the House, not only in its Committee work but in other aspects of the work of the House. We share the loss which, I know, is felt deeply on the benches opposite at the sudden and tragic death of the hon. Lady.
We in the Ministry of Aviation have particularly happy memories of her, because not only are we indebted to her for her chairmanship of the present Bill: she also presided over the Airports Authority Bill. We should like very much to join in what the right hon. Member has said.

Mr. J. Grimond: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that although not on the Committee, I and my hon. Friends would like to be


associated with the tribute to the esteem and affection in which the hon. Lady was held in the House.

New Clause.—(APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF BOARD TO REPRESENT CONSUMER INTERESTS.)

(1) The Minister shall appoint three members (hereinafter referred to as "the members") of the Board of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, to represent the interests of passengers and shippers.

(2) The members shall have access to the working accounts of the Corporation and shall in particular be responsible for appraising from the customer's point of view the services provided and the charges made by the Corporation.

(3) If, on consideration of resolutions of the International Air Traffic Association regarding services and charges, the members unanimously disapprove of the terms of any such resolution, the Corporation shall report accordingly to the Minister who shall lay such report before Parliament.

(4) At any time within one calendar month after the laying of a report under subsection (3) above the Minister shall by statutory instrument direct the Corporation—

(a) to give effect to the recommendation, or
(b) to refrain from giving effect, thereto, and any such direction shall be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps I, as a back-bencher member, may be allowed to add my own appreciation of the work which Dame Edith Pitt did for the Committee.
The new Clause is concerned with the appointment of members of the Board to represent consumer interests. It was a remarkable factor in the Second Reading debate on the Bill that the Minister went right through his speech without once mentioniing passengers or users of B.O.A.C. services. The object of the Clause is to bring forward the fact that if we are to write off a very large sum of money—over£100 million—to put B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. on a commercial basis, it is only right and proper that, at the same time, we should take this opportunity to ensure that the consumer interest is adequately represented in the future. For reasons which I shall give, I think that it is reasonable to maintain that that consumer interest is not adequately represented at present. This is

why my hon. Friends and I have tabled the Clause.
Our fundamental point is that we should put these Corporations not only on a commercial basis but on a competitive basis. If hon. Members look at the Clause, they will see that the Minister is asked to appoint three members of the Board who will represent the interests both of passengers and shippers; that they shall have access to the figures which will be necessary for them to carry out their duties and that, on any occasion when a resolution is passed by the International Air Traffic Association, these resolutions shall be put before the Minister in the usual way.
However, if the representatives of the consumer interests feel that it is not in the interests of passengers and shippers that the resolution should be approved, the Minister shall place the matter before Parliament and it shall then be possible for the House to decide whether to give effect to the I.A.T.A. resolution or refrain from doing so. This would ensure that the interests of the consumer are more adequately protected than they are at present.
It might reasonably be argued that a similar Clause should be added with regard to B.E.A., as well as B.O.A.C., but it would have been delaying the House unnecessarily if I and my hon. Friends had tabled a similar Clause to cover B.E.A. Clearly, if the principle is accepted by the Government—as I hope it will be—it will be possible to amend the Bill further in another place to cover B.E.A. The case for the Clause in connection with B.O.A.C. is somewhat stronger than that for B.E.A., because B.E.A., of course, operates both on domestic and international routes.
The Minister laid some stress during the Second Reading on the fact that B.O.A.C. operates in a competitive market. This was his first point in discussing the market structure of the industry when he said:
…there is intense international competition on all routes.
I suggest that this is not true and that competition has virtually been eliminated —both price competition and service competition—by the way in which the market structure has developed since the end of the Second World War.
The Minister went on to say:
…international fares are determined by machinery over which B.O.A.C. or any other single national airline, has relatively little control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 340.]
He did not make it clear whether he thought that this was good or bad, but certainly he proposed no steps which would elable B.O.A.C. to exercise more control in this respect. In my view it would be desirable that both B.O.A.C. and the Minister should be able to influence the fares which are determined under existing arrangements and that the House should have the right to scrutinisi, these, whenever they are not likely to be in the interests of the consumer.
4.0 p.m.
I will, as briefly as I can, show how effectively competition is eliminated in this industry. The matter really dates back to the Chicago Convention of 1944, which effectively reaffirmed the sovereign rights of all countries over their air space. From then on, countries have used this sovereignty and the right to land for commercial purposes, to strike bargains in international agreements covering air fares. They have done this effectively not by a multilateral agreement, which it was not possible to create, but by a series of bilateral agreements of one of two kinds.
There is, first, what is known as the Bermuda-type agreement where there is no limit on the capacity of the route, but where both lines are entitled to fair and equal treatment. The effect of this is to prevent any significant increase in the market share of one party or another, for if this happens the other party always complains that excess capacity is being created. The alternative is the more rigid 50–50 type of sharing agreement. Under either type of arrangement any airline which is competitive is prevented from increasing its share of the capacity on the route. Thus, airlines are not encouraged to compete either in price or service.
In connection with these agreements, subsidiary arrangements have grown up under I.A.T.A. whereby fares are regulated by a series of traffic conferences, three in number, which determine what the fares shall be. These fares are then charged by all the member airlines. As

a result, the consumer is completely deprived of any choice between one airline and another from the price point of view. He does not have any choice and he cannot say, "I will go by this airline rather than that because I can travel more cheaply". This means that the consumer does not have the sort of freedom which competition ought to give him.
The purpose of the new Clause is to restore to the passenger some degree of sovereignty in this matter. It is true that at present it is possible for individual airlines to stand out against any I.A.T.A. arrangement, but the threat of a so-called open market situation is not very effective. Moreover, an efficient airline may prefer to take a large profit—larger than its competitors—at the existing rates which have been fixed and at a constant market share rather than to cut its rates to compete with other airlines.
In addition to eliminating price competition, I.A.T.A. has sought to eliminate any form of competition in the service provided. This has gone to the ludicrous extent of I.A.T.A. defining what is meant by a sandwich—lest one airline gives a better sandwich than another and thereby increases its market share. Effective competition has been completely eliminated, contrary to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who has now been transported to the Home Office, in his speech on Second Reading.
I suggest, therefore, that the new Clause should be acceptable not only to my hon. Friends, but to hon. Gentlemen opposite, too, because it will ensure not only the interests of B.O.A.C., but also the interests of the customers, on whom the airlines must ultimately rely. Unless one ensures that competition is reestablished and that there is a market which will determine what kind of aircraft people want, there is little basis for taking investment decisions in the aircraft industry.
On 26th January last I asked the Minister whether consumers preferred cheaper to faster air travel. He gave an extremely equivocal answer which suggested that no market research had been undertaken to establish whether people preferred cheaper to faster air travel. He said that there had been some research in connection with the Concord and that there seemed to be a considerable demand


for supersonic travel, but he made no mention of fares, rates, and so on, and whether it would cover the cost of the exercise.
On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman did not say whether people preferred cheaper to faster air travel and it is the contention of my hon. Friends and I that a large number of passengers would like to have a choice—whether they might travel on one airline or another on the basis of price and also on the basis of the service provide, or, alternatively, whether they prefer to travel at a cheaper rate but with not quite so good amenities. At the same time when we are writing off more than£100 million of public money we should surely do something to ensure the interests of the passengers, shippers and others.

Mr. John Rankin: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I notice that those who sponsor the new Clause do not include any hon. Members of the Front Bench opposite. I take it that the Opposition are divided on the merits of the new Clause. One can say without guessing too loudly that the Front Bench opposite dissapproves of the proposal because it is full of inherent danger to air passenger transport.
The hon. Member for Worthing wants to introduce the idea of competition, as if that were not presently existing in air travel. The difference today is that competition consists of one set of operators trying to provide better services than another. That can be instanced in many ways, such as a few extras in the lunch, the fact that a plane will carry passengers more quickly, a better type of plane and more and varied services during the journey.
Hon. Members who use air transport frequently know only too well how much is said about the services and amenities that are provided and how one group of people will prefer to travel by one company's planes while another group will prefer the services of a different company, flying between the same two points. That is the competitive position which we all accept today. The hon. Gentleman wants to induce competition by providing inferior services.

Mr. Higgins: No.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member envisages competition which would result in lower wages and salaries for those who operate these services. If we are going to refuse to accept decisions made by I.A.T.A. and try to cost our services at a lower price, we will have people operating aircraft for lower wages. That is a type of competition that I do not want to see, because it would bring injury to this sort of service.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of freer competition. That phrase has a long history, not only in our air services and our rail services but in the general industrial aspect of British life. Competition by providing lower safety precautions and lower salaries—those are the things that would inevitably occur.
The hon. Member said that no attempt has been made to find out exactly what passengers desire. I challenge that statement, too, because on various occasions I have filled in little cards issued by B.E.A. asking this, that and the other question about what I, as a passenger, think ought to be provided, what is lacking, and so on. Attempts to find out what passengers desire and how they are thinking are being carried out. I have replied to these questions put by B.E.A. and by other air services I have used.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we really knew that people desired cheaper services as against faster services. Obviously, if a person is travelling by air he desires faster services—otherwise he would not travel by air. He would go by train. The train fare between London and Glasgow is less than the air fare, yet people travel by air rather than use the cheaper means of transport. The fact that those using the air services are prepared to use a form of travel much more costly than rail travel or road travel—which is another alternative service that is very much cheaper than air transport —is an indication that they want to travel more quickly.
I can remember that when we had aircraft travelling between London and Glasgow at 250 miles an hour, passengers with whom I travelled said it was too slow. They wanted that journey to take not two hours, but one hour—knowing quite well


that for the faster journey we would have to pay more—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: No.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, of course. We have achieved the increase in speed. Instead of travelling at 250 miles an hour we now travel at 400 miles an hour, so that the journey only takes 1 hour 10 minutes instead of two hours. And fares have had to go up to meet, in addition to other things, the extra cost of faster travel.

Mr. Lubbock: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in spite of increasing speed, air fares are among the few things that have come down, in real terms, in the last few years.

Mr. Rankin: That is not my experience. I am talking about our internal services. The London-Glasgow fare is£21 2s.—a higher fare than we have had since I started travelling by air nearly 18 years ago.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member realises, of course, that this new Clause would not affect the fares at home, but only overseas fares? I.A.T.A. has no control over fares in the country of origin.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said he wanted this provision to apply to B.E.A. If that is the case, he has said that it will apply to internal services. If he wants it to apply to B.E.A., I fail to see how he can keep out the internal services—

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Higgins: With great respect, I said that in order to save time we had not tabled a similar new Clause that would cover B.E.A., but that, in any event, the case in respect of B.E.A. was less strong than that for B.O.A.C.

Mr. Rankin: Even accepting that change of mind, I assert that if we once apply this provision to the external use then, as sure as fate, the party opposite will seek to apply it to the internal side also. Start it in B.O.A.C. and we will finish up with it in B.E.A., also.
I do not know the mind of my own Front Bench on this matter, but I oppose the new Clause because I believe that, in the long run, it would result not only in cheapening the cost of air travel, but

in cheapening the whole of the air services, including wages and all the other aspects that are now involved in transit by air. From that point of view, I hope that we on this side will not agree to the new Clause.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I intended to be brief, and I still intend to be brief. In addition, I think that it would be best and kindest if I made no particular reference to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin)—not even to speculate on the reasons that might have induced people sitting next to him in aeroplanes flying towards London to wish the journey might be accomplished in half the time.
Two points deserve consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has very clearly brought out the first point, which is that the effects of the I.A.T.A. agreements, as they have developed almost to a ludicrous point, deserve to be examined with great care. The stage has now been reached when we should, as a nation, consider whether we should not take steps to try to break some of the price ring which surrounds international air traffic regulations. There may be competition, but it is competition that relates only to speed, not to the extent of offering the kind of services that a great many consumers would, I believe, much prefer to those which they are now more or less forced to accept. This is the first reason why I commend the new Clause.
Second, if the Government will accept, if not exactly the text, at least the spirit of this new Clause, they will be being consistent. We recall the things said and the actions subsequently taken to appoint a consumer director to the board of British European Airways. I do not think it right for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to be treated differently in this respect. If there is a need, and the Government have argued that there is still a need, to have a consumer director for B.E.A., they should accept that there is a similar need to have one for B.O.A.C.
This is of particular importance, because B.O.A.C. carries the flag far further round the world than does B.E.A. It is important that all consumers in every part of the Commonwealth, in Asia and elsewhere, should receive the best possible attention. I am sure that at the moment


B.O.A.C. does its utmost to provide it, but there must always be room for improvement.
With reference to shippers, action is urgently needed. I have been told that B.O.A.C. flew two new 707 freighters empty on its first cargo flight. That does not concern me so much as the situation at London Airport where, according to an editorial in the publication Skytrader International:
London, B.O.A.C.'s greatest gateway for goods, is being shunned by U.S. exporters. Why? Customs clearance, they say, has become plagued with delay. Shippers use every lawful means to get cargo to London by other routes.
In answer to a Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was told that in 1965 operators in and out of London Airport had to pay no less than£100,000 in consideration of extra services above the free attendance hours provided by Customs officials. A consumer or shipper director should be able to highlight at once these difficulties and make powerful representations about them. He would, I hope, have much more ability to correct them than is apparently provided in the powers which B.O.A.C. at the moment enjoys
For these reasons I hope that the Minister will give the new Clause sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I shall detain the House for only a short time to make only two points. If the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) thinks that there is no competition in obtaining customers—that is to say, selling tickets—between airlines, it must be a very long time since he has taken his morning stroll down the central part of Regent Street and along the eastern side of Piccadilly, where a large number of airlines have a large number of expensive offices, manned by expensive staff, entirely for the purpose of selling tickets, generally for journeys on the same routes, in competition with each other.
If the hon. Member thinks there is no competition between airlines it must be a very long time since he has looked at the advertisements in the travel sections of Sunday newspapers and similar journals, because there a great deal of space is taken up and much money burned up by one airline trying to com-

pete for the same passenger on the same route with another airline.
The hon. Member starts with a wrong definition of competition. Perfect competition, of course, involves freedom in fixing prices and in services offered, but the absence of perfect competition does not mean the absence of competition. One could get perfect competition only when no one else was after the customer and that certainly is not the situation in which B.O.A.C. finds itself.
I very much regret the intensity of competition which makes the sales costs of B.O.A.C., and of course other airlines, a large and, I believe, an increasing part of the price that the passenger pays for his ticket. I would much sooner see that element of the ticket cost going over to reduce the fare or to improve the physical services offered, but all the airlines complain of the necessity of spending more and more on sales costs. I am sure that that proves conclusively that there is competition.
If I may say so without offence, in Committee the hon. Member gave us the benefit of some thoughtful and constructive speeches which clearly revealed that he has great knowledge and experience in the operations of commerce. He must know from that knowledge and experience that one of the worst ways of running a company or corporation, perhaps the worst way, is to run it by a board which is a collection of representatives of different interests instead of a board which is a policy-making body of people all of whom seek the same objectives.
As the hon. Member knows very well, probably better than I do, every board has to make decisions at times in which it has to weigh the interests of the finances against the interests of the customer and the interests of the customer against those of the worker, and so on. It has to make judgments about the relative validity of these different sectional interests. But, if we are to have a board which consists of representatives of sectional interests, we are asking for the judgment between the validity of different interests to be made by the advocates of those interests. That is a perfect way to secure that the judgment is made with the utmost lack of impartiality and, therefore, the judgment is made in the most ineffective way.
Why stop at the interests quoted by the hon. Member? He spoke of consumers and of shippers. His hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), making plea, as he thought, for the representation of shippers, was a little confused. He actually called for representation of importers. He said that the United States shippers to this country have some complaints about what goes on. I dare say they have, but I am sure the hon. Member would not ask for American citizens to be on the board of B.O.A..C. or that the men who receive the goods should be put on the board. They are not shippers, but importers.

Mr. Onslow: Anyone who receives anything which is sent from one point to another is a shipper.

Mr. Mikardo: That is a very bright doctrine, that we should put on the board of a British public corporation people of foreign origin to represent special interests. That would start all sorts of precedents. If that is what the hon. Member has in mind I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) pointed out that this Amendment is not supported by the Front Bench opposite. If we could have passengers, shippers and importers represented, why not workers? They are very much affected by the decisions of the board of B.O.A.C. We would finish with a board consisting of a large number of warring factions.
This is a piece of arrant nonsense. It would not have surprised me coming from some hon. Members opposite, but it does surprise me coming from the hon. Member for Worthing, who knows a great deal better than that. I feel sure that he knows so much better that he will not press the Clause.

4.30 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: This is a very good Clause indeed. I say at once, however, that I would not in the least mind travelling to Glasgow with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), because we are both talkers. I hope that I do not talk so much rubbish as he talked this afternoon.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Lady tries to.

Dame Irene Ward: As I have just flown out to New Zealand and back again

over the Pacific, as I have travelled by a large number of airlines, and also because I have sat on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries when we made an inquiry into B.O.A.C., perhaps I may be allowed to say why I support the Clause. I shall not do it in any grand tones, because I do not know anything grand about these things, except that if B.O.A.C. had been allowed to buy more VC10s it would have been better for this country. I am sorry that the Corporation was not so allowed.
When it comes to consumer interests or passenger interests, the policy of airlines leaves much to be desired. For instance, when I was flying, I think in the middle of the night, on my way to Fiji or Auckland somebody came round and, in the consumer interest or in the competitive spirit, offered me a small bathing beach bag in which I could not have put my bathing cap. When I said, "Thank you very much, but I do not think I want to add this to my luggage", the most charming air hostess said, "Have you not any children that you could give it to at home?" My answer was, "I am on my way to New Zealand from London. I do not want to carry a tiny beach bag round the world to give to a goddaughter or possibly a godson".
The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said something about the sale of B.O.A.C. tickets and walking down Piccadilly or some other part of London. When I got my air ticket to go round the world, I was given a lot of sticky labels which added to the weight of the air ticket, and a notice put in by B.O.A.C. saying, "In your own interests, please stick these on your luggage". I try to be co-operative, so I stuck two on my luggage. They did not last one minute, and I could not see that it mattered to anybody as I flitted from airport to airport on all sorts of different lines whether I had the sticky label or the bit of the label which was left on my luggage.
In the interests of passengers, a great deal of the advertising undertaken by all airlines needs to be considered by someone who really knows something about advertising. I do not assert that I know about that, but I am a practical person. I have observed what has been happening over the past few years—in fact, since B.O.A.C. first started. Believe me, I


flew out to China during the war. I know quite a lot about flying, whether it is sitting on bomb racks or flying first-class coming back from New Zealand. I know a great deal about it, and I know what passengers would like.
As to the advertising to the effect that "B.O.A.C. takes great care of you", it takes less care of you today than it did in the past. The advertising or attraction to fly B.O.A.C. or any other line has become great, but when one gets to an airport the conditions are such that it takes much longer to get through the airport and thus on the way to one's destination.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Lady is blaming B.O.A.C. for something which is not its responsibility.

Dame Irene Ward: If there were a consumer interest represented on B.O.A.C., and people spoke up enough, it could get this whole matter considered by the international organisation. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I believe that Great Britain cannot speak up for its own B.O.A.C. if it has views on policy to put forward. I do not denigrate my country. We have the best aeroplane in the world. I do not know how much the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) stuck up for it. I know that I did. I think that it is the best aeroplane in the world.

Mr. Lubbock: Unfair.

Dame Irene Ward: It is not at all unfair. You muttered that I was talking nonsense, so I say you are talking nonsense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Lady must not tell me that I am talking nonsense.

Mr. Lubbock: Nor must the hon. Lady accuse me of not sticking up for the VC10. The hon. Lady has obviously not been present at any aviation debate since the VC10 was first on the stocks.

Dame Irene Ward: That may be. The point is that I sat on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I do not think the hon. Gentleman sat on that. I know a lot about it, so I will get on with it. Besides, I am a great deal older than he

and I have more flying time to my credit. So that is that.
I am certain that it is in the interests of the community and of our air services that we should have someone who can speak up for consumer interests. There are some magnificent people on the boards, but they talk so much, quite rightly, about technical details, designs of planes, their performance, safety, and all the rest of it. We are very grateful for that. However, just a few little interesting details as to what the consumer thinks would not come amiss.
This provides me with a wonderful opportunity to raise something which I have wanted to raise for a very long time. Suddenly, British air services withdrew that very delightful sweet allowance. Travellers on other airlines all over the world still receive these fascinating sweets. If B.O.A.C. does not know it, there cannot be a country without women because it would not exist at all. I speak from a woman's point of view. If B.O.A.C. would only realise how much adverse comment there is because our airlines do not hand out those charming little sweets, it might do something about it. Perhaps all the grand people who sit on the board of B.O.A.C. do not like boiled sweets. Perhaps these people are so important that they are paid sufficient money that, even if they travel tourist, they are able to buy champagne. However, women take a great interest in these litle sweets. I say that there should be a woman on the board representing consumer interests.
As I travelled around the world I was offered socks. That might be quite nice. I was offered a little model of the VC10, which I was very glad to receive. I thought that was a very nice thing to be offered. I had all sorts of funny bits and pieces. But very little attention was paid to passenger interests at the airports where the planes discharged their passengers. It would be a very good idea to have consumer interests represented on the board.
In addition, I fully support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about shippers. All sorts of peculiar things are happening in this direction. Of course, hon. Members opposite think that nationalised boards, with their ideas, are "know-alls" of everything. But they are not "know-alls". I am a great believer in having


the appropriate representation of interests on these boards.
I know very well that what I say does not suit the Government, and I doubt that the speech of the hon. Member for Govan would suit the Government any more than it suited me. But it is going a bit far if hon. Members opposite and, indeed, the previous Government, who appointed the members of the board, think that the people who are connected with or have done magnificent work on the aeroplanes, on the technical side, costing and that sort of thing are able to represent every interest. Anyone who thinks that is living in a fool's paradise and should study the very good Report which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries presented on the problems of B.O.A.C.
A little study of that Report shows that the structure of B.O.A.C. was severely criticised by the Select Committee because some of the people who were working in the Corporation, not on the hoard but as departmental chiefs, and so on, very able men indeed, were quite unable, because of the structure of the business, to present to the board what they thought ought to be presented to the board.
I am not all that keen on having a few grand people at the top without a few ordinary people on the board who can consider and present the problems which arise and give advice when necessary. This does not mean that the other members of the board would necessarily accept the advice which is offered, but the interests of the consumer must be put, and they cannot be put if there is no one on the board to make the case.
I should like to know how many members of the board of B.O.A.C. fly tourist or economy class when they go round the world. It makes a lot of difference. I imagine that they all get V.I.P. treatment. V.I.P. treatment is very nice when one happens to be a V.I.P. It am not complaining about that—it is absolutely marvellous—but someone who gets V.I.P. treatment, who is met and rushed away from the airport and who always travels first class, cannot know very much about the consumer interests of people who travel tourist or economy class.
The hon. Member for Govan seems to be very pleased that he has filled in a lot of little forms. I get simply infuriated

when I am comfortably settling off to sleep, or looking out of the window and enjoying flying over Mont Blanc, or something like that, and then someone pushes a little form into my hand, and says, "Please fill this in". I do not want to fill in forms in aeroplanes. I very much doubt that all the forms which are filled in play any part at all. I should like to know how many of these little forms which are filled in are read by the present chairman of B.O.A.C. He may ask for a précis sometimes, but I cannot think that that sort of thing is any use at all.
We should be very well served if we had a representative of travellers and shippers on the board of B.O.A.C. who could explain how irritating it is to have so many forms to fill in. The right hon. Ernest Bevin said that it was his ambition that we should travel the world without passports. I should like to see his burly figure with us today and hear his comment on how nice it would be if we could only travel the world without having to fill in printed forms which do not mean anything. I am sure that he would be on my side.
Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether any members of the board of B.O.A.C. ever fly tourist or economy or ever fail to receive V.I.P. treatment. Someone who can get quickly away from the airport and not have to fiddle about as the ordinary passenger has to do would be much better off if he heard the views of a few ordinary people who travel in the ordinary way.
It is not a question of money. Of course, we are proud of our increased technical knowledge, of our improved speed and that sort of thing. We are proud of our record of safety, which is second to none—I am very proud of both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—but it is the smaller interests which ought to be looked after; I am not putting it higher than that. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) talked about small things rather than great things. It is often the small things in this country which are so irritating, because the Front Bench opposite is all for the great and never for the small. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the new Clause.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) argued that three representatives of consumer interests should have seats on the board. Obviously, this would cost money.

Dame Irene Ward: I would go on for nothing.

Mr. Doig: It would mean setting up some form of organisation for finding out what the consumers want. Yet the hon. Lady is against filling up a form which can convey direct to the board exactly what every consumer wants. She is quite willing to spend the public's money so that three people can demonstrate to the board what the public want, rather inaccurately because they will never get the information from everyone, but she is opposed to a simple method which costs little or nothing for supplying just that information at first hand. She objects to the small effort in filling up a form. This is a rather strange point of view.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The House will probably agree that it is probably a good thing that there is not at present an absolutely silent aircraft flying between London and Glasgow with both my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) travelling on it. We have had an exhibition this afternoon of how they can talk, and I have no doubt that the rest of the passengers would have a rather difficult time.
We have rather got away from the intention behind much of the new Clause. Here I must declare an interest. I am a director of a private airline. I agree to some extent with the argument put from the opposite benches that the board must not be one which is likely to wrangle the whole time. One would have to be assured that any new members who were brought on to represent the consumers' interests would work in such a way that the board could get through some business at some time. Otherwise, there would be nothing done in the interests either of consumers or of anyone else connected with the airline.
The whole point of the new Clause, which, I think, was lost by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), is that

these two airways Corporations of ours are great corporations. Let us accept that. It is not quite the point which I want to make, there is no difference of opinion on this, but I want to establish it nevertheless. Second, I imagine that we shall all agree that our two Corporations are not perfect. No commercial organisation is perfect, and one can always improve it. But, above all, they are public corporations; they are there for the benefit of the public. This is the crux of the matter.
If we accept that the nationalised industries are publicly owned and there to serve the public interest, it follows that the consumers' interests must at all times be given the greatest consideration. I do not imagine that the Minister and I will differ about that. Therefore, it is merely a matter of deciding how best the public interest can be served.
With respect, I think that it would have been better if my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) had suggested that the new Clause should be related mainly to B.E.A., not to B.O.A.C. In international aviation, the International Air Transport Association controls the fares. There is no question of any international airline being able to cut its fares on scheduled international services and as a nation we have no direct control over them. But B.E.A.'s internal services are a matter for us and the Minister of Aviation and the Air Transport Licensing Board set the fares.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing is asking is that
The Minister shall appoint three members …of the Board of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, to represent the interests of passengers and shippers.
There is nothing wrong with that suggestion. There are many ways in which such representatives could help to some degree, although not to the extent that my hon. Friend believes. They could, for instance, give some help concerning airport conditions—but I would be out of order if I were to pursue the subject of airports, because they do not come within the Bill.
The main point regarding consumer interest has been dramatically highlighted this week. On Monday, I put a Written Question to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, asking him to refer to


the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fare increases granted to B.E.A., which will raise internal fares by 7½per cent. The right hon. Gentleman replied, "No, Sir".
I have declared my interest, so I am able to make this point. When the application for the increases was made, it was contested by one of the independents and it went before the Air Licensing Board. In its decision, the board stated that it could not really decide whether the increases were necessary or not—and I draw the Minister's attention to this—yet, in effect, said, "But as B.E.A. say it needs the increases, we will grant them".

Mr. Mulley: I have read the report of the board and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that he is giving a rather colourful version.

Mr. Burden: But this is substantially what was said. The board said, in effect, that it really did not have enough information to be able to determine the merits, but that since B.E.A. had pressed its case it would grant the increases.
Here is surely an illustration of the necessity for having on the board of B.E.A. someone to watch the consumer interest. Had someone been watching the consumer interest in this case, the consumers would probably still be benefiting to the tune of about 15 per cent. on the fares which will have to be paid.

Mr. Mulley: Mr. Mulley indicated dissent.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. But at least B.E.A. would have had to make a stronger case. An independent will not say that an increase is unnecessary unless there is a fairly substantial case against making that increase. These matters are very important. If there had been a member of the B.E.A. board caring for the consumer interest at the time, on that specific date, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that such a member might have had a substantial effect on the board in this issue? I am not saying that the Air Licensing Board was wrong in granting B.E.A.'s application. I presume that it did so in the light of the information it had. But the point my hon. Friend makes in the new Clause is that someone should be watching the public

interest not only from the point of view of rising fares but from other aspects.
B.O.A.C. is a nationalised Corporation. It belongs to the public. It is an airline of which we are all justifiably proud. But it is not perfect and will never be perfect. There are criticisms of its services and many of its actions and therefore the new Clause would help. If the right hon. Gentleman will give the Clause sympathetic consideration, I feel sure that he will agree that, by it, the public image of this nationalised concern will be considerably improved and will benefit from the actions taken.

Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) in telling the House that I do not disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). On the contrary, I agree very strongly with the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and disagree very strongly with what the hon. Member for Govan had to say. However, having recently travelled with the hon. Gentleman in a not very large and not very fast aircraft between London and Bordeaux and back, I certainly stand up for him as a travelling companion. In that capacity I can give him very high references indeed.
This House should be very jealous about consumer interests. There are plenty of organised associations of employers, workers and others to stand up for sectional interests. It is much more difficult to find ways in which the rights of individual citizens can be represented. But that is one of the main functions we in this House should perform. Whatever legislation we may be dealing with, we should have that aspect in the forefront of our minds. For that, if for no other reason, the House should be grateful to my hon. Friends for this new Clause.
5.0 p.m.
First, the Clause proposes that there should be three members on the board of B.O.A.C. charged with the direct task of looking after the interests of the consumers—and by consumers I mean both the individual traveller and those who use the services of the airline for the carriage of goods. I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to this. It is quite nonsensical, if the Government appoint a consumer director to the board of


B.E.A., to refuse to appoint one to the board of B.O.A.C. It might be argued that three were too many. But to have no director of this kind on the board of B.O.A.C., after having made such a point of putting one on the board of B.E.A., would be indefensible, and the Minister must give us our way on that.
The second part of the new Clause deals with I.A.T.A. As the House will know from previous debates, we on this side believe that the best and ultimately the only safeguard for the consumer is competition. This has been made clear in airline operations as in other things in recent years. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will have read the proceedings of recent hearings in connection with licences for the operation of internal routes and will have noticed what was said by the Commissioner in summing up when he paid tribute to the new services which were provided for the benefit of the consumer when the independents started to operate and which were copied by B.E.A., but, unfortunately, withdrawn again after the independents temporarily went off the route.
I do not want to pursue that now except to give it as an example of the way in which competition can and does serve the interests of the consumer more effectively than any other way.

Mr. Rankin: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the independents on routes between London and Scotland. Does he not realise that that competition is somewhat false for the simple reason that the services by the independents were highly subsidised?

Mr. Carr: I do not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would approve if we were drawn into a debate on the whole economics of internal airlines. The independents entered on that route in the belief that they could be expanding services. The point that I was making was that the introduction of those services directly resulted in better service for the consumer, not only on the independent lines, but on the nationalised lines. We therefore think that competition is important.
At the same time, I agree that one cannot have completely unrestricted competition with airline operations. There-

fore, with both domestic and international routes one has to have some sort of regulation and it is all a matter of how much and in what form. Because of this I am in general agreement with the work done by I.A.T.A., but I also feel that it could easily become too restrictive and too powerful and that if we looked into it closely we could find ways in which from the consumer point of view matters might be improved. The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) spoke of the competition which took place in the form of advertising, or gifts of travel bags and models and the like, but that is exactly the sort of unwanted competition which the rigidity of I.A.T.A. thrusts upon the airlines. I do not believe that passengers want to be given these things to attract them to one airline or the other. That is not the sort of competition which they are seeking.
I sympathise with the purposes which my hon. Friends have in mind in promoting the Clause. The only reason why I shall not advise them to divide the House if the Minister is not very forthcoming, and I hope that he will be, is that I believe that the machinery and rules of I.A.T.A. are very complicated and should be considered as a whole rather than dealt with piecemeal.
Because I feel somewhat inhibited on those general grounds, I hope that the Minister will be as forthcoming as he can and will certainly accept the first part of the Clause and go as far as he can to a sympathetic understanding of the purposes of the second. What he might say might lead us to be able to make constructive suggestions about I.A.T.A., and so on, when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Mulley: The House has just heard a most remarkable speech from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in which he has invited me to give a forthcoming reply on a new Clause for which he is not prepared himself to vote. If there is any doubt, perhaps I should say at once that the Clause in the form in which it appears is not one which I could recommend the House to accept. I hope that I shall never condemn any Motion or Amendment put down by an hon. Member for its drafting deficiencies, because I have had the experience of the


difficulties which hon. Members encounter in that respect, but the Clause is such that it is not just a matter of putting drafting deficiencies right. Frankly, the whole concept is misconceived.
The whole purpose of this very cumbersome device of having three consumers on the board is to get the House of Commons to consider decisions of I.A.T.A. With rather less ingenuity than the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has employed in drafting his Clause, he could at any time ask Questions about I.A.T.A., because I or my successors as Minister would be responsible for any such decisions. After the I.A.T.A. conference has made its recommendations, they are governmental decisions and there is no need to go through a very cumbersome procedure of having three members to represent consumer interests on the board.
Presumably, the idea was that they would make a report to the Minister who would then put it before Parliament and the hon. Members concerned could ask Questions or have a debate. There is rather lass complexity about the present procedure under which the matter has been raised in the past, and I expect that it will be raised again.
However, the House is entitled to ask about the particular issues which have been raised, the need or desirability of definite consumer representation on the one hand and the position of I.A.T.A. and the general issue of competition on the other. I confess that when the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was entertaining us with a characteristic and lively speech, I was almost persuaded that it would do no harm for such views to be expressed from time to time at board meetings of either independent or nationalised corporations. Frankly, I cannot answer her question, because it was outside my day-to-day responsibilities in a sense, when she asked how many and how often members of the board travelled by economy or tourist class. I can tell her that I as Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have had very much experience of travelling economy class in the airlines of the world and, unlike the hon. Lady, we did not have the tag "V.I.P.", so that we know what it is to trudge across an airport carrying one's own luggage. She need not despair that under present arrange-

ments these matters are overlooked. I will see that her views are brought to the personal attention of the Chairman of B.O.A.C. who, I am sure, will be most interested to have her views about the operation of the airline and, in particular, on the subject of sweets.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked why, as my predecessor had appointed a member to the board of B.E.A. for the purpose of representing consumer interests, I should not be able to accept this rather wider proposal in respect of the board of B.O.A.C. I should say straightaway that there is no question of there being a statutory representative of consumers on the board of B.E.A. There was a rather special reason at the time because there was a very substantial monopoly of B.E.A. services on the domestic routes, which is not the case now. In making recommendations any Minister is obviously bound to see that there is on the board a body of people with a wide spread of experience. On the present board of B.O.A.C. there are four full-time directors and seven part-time directors. In any event, I am only allowed to have 11 directors by the 1949 Act, which the movers of the Clause have not sought to amend. Without such an amendment I would have to put three of these members on by sacking three of the existing members.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kind remarks on drafting. I think that the Minister will find if he looks at the proposal that it is not necessary to do as he suggests. It is simply that three of the existing members could be appointed alternatively.

Mr. Mulley: If someone is a member of the board how does one appoint them as a consumer representative additionally? If the hon. Member is saving that the members of the board are in a sense representatives of consumer interests, then I will agree. I am certain that all the representatives of the board have the consumers at heart.
I dispute the argument that there is no competition in international airlines. The North Atlantic route at present is about the most hazardous and arduous competitive business of all. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who has some experience of these matters


concurs with me in this. It is a highly competitive affair. Among those recently appointed to the board are businessmen and a trade unionist who is a former Member of this House, with a very important job concerned with redevelopment in the North-East.
At present, the board is made up of Members who have between them a wide knowledge and experience of interests to ensure that all these points are before the board when decisions are taken. I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and there was in the earlier part of the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham a recognition that one cannot run a board or business on a group of representative interests. The board has to take collective responsibility for decisions just as Mrs. Munro, the B.E.A. director who has a special concern for consumers, takes responsibility as a furl member of the board. I am glad to say that Mrs. Munro's appointment has been of that character from the beginning. She is a full member of the board.

Mr. Burden: Mrs. Munro is a rather unique person in this connection, because, while she is representing the consumer interests, she is a person with a very wide knowledge of the airline industry.

Mr. Mulley: I agree and I am quite certain that her appointment by my right hon. Friend was a very satisfactory and imaginative one. I hope that all members of the boards would acquire a great knowledge of the airline industry, so that they may carry out their duties more efficiently. It would not be right or proper to have designated consumer representatives on the Board even though they were not tied by the rather complicated duties which the hon. Member for Worthing seeks to impose upon them.
5.15 p.m.
I would like to turn briefly to the other points of substance, about competition and, in particular, about our participation in the International Air Transport Association. I want to make it quite clear to the House and to the hon. Member for Gillingham that I cannot reply to his remarks about the recent decisions of the Air Traffic Licensing Board, because there are still seven days in which an

appeal can be made and that appeal will be made to me. It will be my responsibility to decide. In these circumstances, I am a person with an interest and I regret that the hon. Gentleman saw fit to make the kind of remarks which he did.

Mr. Burden: I am very sorry about that. I did not realise we were still within the period. I apologise.

Mr. Mulley: I understand that there is still a week to go. The hon. Member will understand that it would be most improper for me to make any observations on this matter, quite apart from the fact that, as I see it, it is rather wider than the scope of the Clause.
The House must find out whether the Opposition support I.A.T.A. It is not simply an organisation of nationalised airlines. At least two of our own independent airlines, British United and British Eagle, are members. In other countries there are some publicly-owned, some partially publicly-owned and some completely privately-owned airlines involved. It is a matter for not only national, but international policy, and this should be made clear. The right hon. Gentleman was a little equivocal as to whether he supported I.A.T.A. or not. The broad principle of whether it is beneficial to the country for air corporations and independents to remain members of I.A.T.A. ought to be made clear so that no wrong inference will be drawn outside.

Mr. R. Carr: I will put this right, if there is any doubt about it. I thought I said very clearly that I recognised that completely unrestricted competition was not appropriate in that area of airline operation, and that there must be some body, both internal and international to control affairs. Therefore, I supported the principle of I.A.T.A. I do not think that this is inconsistent with saying that from time to time this House should take a look at I.A.T.A. and see how it is working. I also said that one reason why I would not advise my hon. Friends to divide on this new Clause was because if and when we take a look at the workings of I.A.T.A., it ought to be done as a whole and not bit by bit. In principle, I supported the I.A.T.A.

Mr. Mulley: It is as well to have no misunderstanding on this, because it has


very wide implications outside. None of us would claim that I.A.T.A. is perfect but, like all international organisations, it is no better or worse than its members make it. If one belongs to an organisation, and is clearly in a minority, it is sometimes the case, as in every other international sphere, whether of sport or economic affairs, that one can persuade other countries to agree with one and carry the day. In other cases one may wish things to go differently.
It is in the interests of the country and of civil aviation that we continue to support the international organisations involved. If we were to accept this Clause it would not have any bearing on whether we belong to I.A.T.A. or whether things went on as they are. All it would do would be to give a statutory right to Members of Parliament to talk about it in this House. In my experience there is no need to appoint three people to write a report for Members of Parliament. After all Members of Parliament represent consumers because we are in direct contact with a whole range of passengers and shippers. In my experience our constituents very rapidly bring to us their complaints and experiences. Therefore, I should have thought that this device to permit Members of Parliament to do their job was not only unnecessary but very uncomplimentary to the way in which the House discharges its duties.
The hon. Member for Worthing did not like the answer which he received about market research, about whether people preferred to travel cheaper or faster. I was not able to give him a clearer answer because this kind of question is not susceptible to a precise answer. It all depends on the circumstances. One of the market research surveys conducted in the United States showed that it was very difficult to obtain significant data because about two-thirds of the people who were questioned were travelling on business or for some official purpose and did not have to pay their fares. Therefore, they were not primarily activated in their choice of aircraft by the amount which had to be paid for their fares.
Generally, if people on aircraft are asked to fill up forms, this is going to a lot of trouble to produce an answer which we probably know before we start. If we ask people the simple question,

"Would you like to have something cheaper?", they will say "Yes". If we ask them, "Would you like to get to the end of your journey faster?", equally they will say "Yes". But between these two propositions there is a complicated range of options.
We are studying this matter with particular reference to the impact of supersonic flight and the Concord project.

Mr. Higgins: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be possible to frame a question such as, "Would you prefer to have a 10 per cent. reduction in fares, or get to your destination 10 per cent. faster?".

Mr. Mulley: That would not be a very significant question either, because if a person were going across the world, 10 per cent. would have a very much greater bearing in both senses. In certain circumstances one would willingly pay 10 per cent. more to get to one's destination more quickly. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spent 42 hours in an aircraft this week to get back here for the debate on the Plow-den Report. I think that he would have been very happy if he could have got back more quickly.

Mr. R. Carr: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a bit more recognition to the ordinary traveller? Many people, like myself, have relatives in, for example, Australia. They cannot spend three or four weeks to go by ship. They would willingly take three days rather than one day to go by air if they could have a cheaper fare for the slower journey. This is the sort of interest which we feel these great organisations are inclined not to give proper attention to.

Mr. Mulley: I was not saying that there was not a case for cheaper fares. What I was disputing with the hon. Member for Worthing was the difficulty of conducting market research on the basis of simple questions without having more information on the things which annoy travellers so much, and about which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth spoke.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham cannot have it both ways. One cannot work with an international organisation and then expect me, or our individual companies or corporations to fix the


fares. In the highly competitive international air transport business there are many airlines which are very anxious to reduce fares on the basis that it will increase their business. This is a point of view which comes before every airline board at every meeting which it has.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden indicated assent.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman confirms that.
Neither the writing of consumer representation on the board into the Bill nor this very complicated way of discussing I.A.T.A. is necessary. I would ask the hon. Member for Worthing to withdraw the Motion. If he will not, I ask the House to reject the Clause.

Mr. Higgins: I cannot agree with any of the arguments put forward by the Minister. A very considerable division of opinion between the two sides of the House has been revealed. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that perhaps this matter would best be discussed in the wider context of a discussion on I.A.T.A. I hope that we shall have the opportunity of having such a discussion in the near future. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(EXCHEQUER INVESTMENT IN B.O.A.C. OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF LOAN.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stone-house): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, after "as" to insert:
'may be proposed by the Corporation and approved by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury, or such other amount as".
During our discussions in Standing Committee, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) proposed that the Exchequer equity dividend should be determined by the Corporation after consultation with the Minister. We had to oppose that proposal because we felt that the Minister should have responsibility for the final determination. However, we undertook to consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to see how far we could agree with it. This Amendment is the result of our consideration.
We do not accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman originally proposed, namely, that the Corporation should determine the rate. But we now accept that the Corporation should take the initiative in making the proposal and then the Minister will have the final decision. We believe that this will be a happy arrangement between the Corporation and the Ministry.
We thank the right hon. Gentleman for his proposal. We are sorry that we cannot accept it in full, but we hope that the Amendment will be acceptable to him and to the House.

Mr. R. Carr: I should like to express the Opposition's gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for considering the arguments which we put forward, first, on Second Reading, and then in Committee. We realise that the Amendment does not go as far as we wanted, but we feel that it goes a very long way to meet us. We accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(FINANCIAL DUTIES OF B.O.A.C.)

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 15, at the end, to insert:

(6) The Minister may by order—

(a) substitute for the duty imposed by subsection (4) of this section a financial duty expressed otherwise than by reference to a rate of return on net assets; and
(b) for that purpose, direct that the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order and make such other incidental and transitional provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient;
but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(7) Any order under the last foregoing subsection shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under that subsection.

On 21st December, in Standing Committee, the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) moved an Amendment the object of which was to enable the Minister to vary the financial duties of the Corporation and to allow for moneys other than those from the State to be invested in it. We felt that


we could look sympathetically at the first part of his proposal but had to reject the second part because it would have involved private shareholders being allowed to invest in B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. However, we valued the initial point which the right hon. Gentleman made, and I undertook in Committee to bring before the House an Amendment which would take account of this point. This is the Amendment.

The Amendment is designed to enable the Minister to change the financial duty of the Corporation if it is so desired. There may be ways in which this duty can be expressed other than is now provided in the Bill. We want to have that flexibility.

5.30 p.m.

As the right hon. Gentleman said in Standing Committee, his original proposal was designed to take the Minister of the day out of a straitjacket and to give him that little flexibility—a valuable proposal. We have taken it up and made the proposal contained in the Amendment to meet the point of view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. R. Carr: I simply once more express gratitude to the Government. One is encouraged to feel that Committee stages of Bills can be constructive in this way and we are grateful for what has been done. I must warn the Government that on some other occasion we shall return to the charge about the other half of oar original Amendment to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 15, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(6) The Corporation shall ensure that any moneys advanced to subsidiary or associated Companies of the Corporation, where the other sole shareholder is not a nationalised corporation (in which case this subsection will not apply), bear interest at the commercial rate applicable for the time being.
I move the Amendment with a certain amount of disappointment, because when a similar, but not precisely identical, Amendment was before the Committee upstairs, the Parliamentary Secretary in his concluding remarks said that if the Opposition would agree to withdraw their

Amendment, which, I admit, was less adequate than the present one, the Government would undertake to consider the valuable points which had been raised. The hon. Gentleman said that
if we can meet some of the points raised we shall be very pleased to do so. We recognise the validity of some of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 9th December, 1965; c. 133.]
From what one can see from the Amendment Paper, no gesture has so far been forthcoming from the Government in terms of what we have in mind.
The Amendment proposes to insert an additional subsection. We put it forward to meet what we consider to be real concern on both sides—concern which was expressed volubly on Second Reading by hon. Members opposite, who, alas, are not in their place this afternoon, about the B.O.A.C.-Cunard agreement and concern which was expressed from this side, despite the rightness, as we see it, of that agreement, that in one important respect concerning its working it is not perhaps tight enough.
We are concerned here with a mixed Corporation. Capital is held in part by B.O.A.C. and in part by the Cunard Steam-Ship Company. B.O.A.C. borrows money at a highly proferential rate. If one takes account of the past losses that are written off by the process of the Bill, one finds that B.O.A.C. has borrowed at zero interest in recent years. Let us, however, accept a nominal rate of interest, which of itself is highly preferential. We are concerned that this preferential rate should not be passed on beyond the public Corporation to the private purse, that it should not be filtered through to the other part of the B.O.A.C.-Cunard partnership.
The Amendment concerns something which is much worse than not simply passing on a preferential rate of interest. From Appendix D-6 at page 104 of the last accounts produced by B.O.A.C. for the year to 31st March, 1965, one sees that it is not just a question of a small amount of money. Some£8½million was involved, and the Parliamentary Secretary confirmed in Standing Committee that for a variety of reasons, which to us on this side did not appear to carry much conviction, the£8i million had no interest charge whatever attached to it.
We are concerned, therefore, not merely about the filtering of preferential loan


money from B.O.A.C. to a mixed public and private enterprise body—B.O.A.C.Cunard. We are concerned also that at a certain point in time in the accounts of B.O.A.C. there are advances from the parent company to the subsidiary totalling£8½ million, and the Parliamentary Secretary is on record to the effect that not one penny of this enormous advance attracts any rate of interest.
The object of the Amendment should be fairly clear from what I have said. We do not want to cast aspersions on B.O.A.C. as such. We simply wish to put what we regard as important questions and to try to find better ways of achieving a satisfactory working relationship between B.O.A.C. and B.O.A.C.-Cunard.
One point to which I should draw the Minister's attention is that in the present version of the Amendment as opposed to the one which was moved in Standing Committee, we have endeavoured to exclude advances to subsidiaries where the other shareholder is a nationalised Corporation, the intention being that the effect of the Amendment that advances should bear interest at commercial rates should be applicable only in those situations where the public Corporation is in partnership with a private interest.
We regard this as an important Amendment. It raises important questions of public financial policy and control. We were far from satisfied with the explanations that we were given in Committee of obscure accounting reasons why interest rates could not be applied. It struck us as nothing more than teaming and lading in a manner which would be undesirable between any parent company and its subsidiary, and we must insist upon this whole issue being clarified.

Mr. Mulley: It may be for the convenience of the House if I reply to the reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stain-ton). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking in Committee that this matter would be further examined, and it has been. It is quite usual that when Governments give undertakings to examine matters, until the debate takes place they cannot express their views on the Amendment Paper. That is the only reason why nothing

appeared on the Paper. Had the hon. Member inquired, we would have been willing to explain the circumstances that, in our opinion, make it wrong to put down an Amendment. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member that a full explanation is necessary and that steps are required to prevent the occurrence of what he has described unless there are very good reasons for it.
I agree at once that the lending of money by a public corporation to any subsidiary which is not wholly publiclyowned—as the Amendment recognises, it would be an exceptional case—at less than commercial rates, certainly at less than the rates at which the money was borrowed, would be bad policy and a bad principle of administration.
I want to stress that the only reason I do not accept the Amendment at once is that such a precept ought not to be written into a Statute of this kind. Following the previous Administration, rightly I think, the Government accepted in the terms of the letter of 1st January, 1964, that the fundamental responsibility of the corporations to act in accordance with their commercial judgment should not be interfered with unless absolutely necessary.
I would suggest to the House that while on grounds of principle it might be proper to write into the Bill this particular restriction on their commercial judgment, it would be rather odd if at the same time we did not draw up a code of what they were supposed to do and not supposed to do.
The fundamental right that we need to preserve is the right of the House to be informed and to question the Minister if any such unsatisfactory practices are thought to have taken' place in future.
I have discussed it fully with the Chairman of B.O.A.C., and I have an assurance from him that on the one hand he foresees no circumstances where this kind of lending could recur in the future and, on the other, although one can think of such circumstances as a short-term arrangement or something of that sort, if there were any special circumstances he would refer them to the Minister and would not make any loan without prior reference to the Minister and, of course, in those special circumstances if the Minister agreed he would be liable to account to the House.

Mr. Burden: This is a very interesting point because, in principle, the Minister has agreed that it is wrong for a corporation to lend to a subsidiary at a lower rate of interest than that at which it borrows itself, or at no interest, and also that it should not be done without the Minister being asked. Is it possible for a system of Statutory Instrument to apply in a case where such a loan is made? If it were made by Statutory Instrument it could lie on the Table so that the House would be able to examine it.

Mr. Mulley: Frankly, a system of operation by Statutory Instrument would be rather cumbersome. What the House is asked to consider now is a total prohibition. As any hon. Member with business experience knows, it is a frightful restriction on what in proper circumstances would be the right thing to do if it cannot be done without going through the necessarily long process of amending legislation.
It is only for that reason that I would ask the House not to press the Amendment in legislative form but to accept that I have an assurance in writing from the Chairman of B.O.A.C. that, on the one hand, these types of loans are most exceptional and he does not anticipate that it will arise again and, on the other hand, if for good reasons such a question should arise he would not make the loan without prior reference to the Minister.
In the terms of that assurance, without wishing to fetter the commercial judgment of the board of B.O.A.C. too much, I hope that the House will feel that it can let the matter rest there and, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman might feel willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I am bound to say that I am not at all satisfied with the answer that the Minister has given. He has not explained how this loan arose in the first place. As I understand it, the aircraft were acquired by B.O.A.C., but they were being used by B.O.A.C.-Cunard and were subsequently transferred to the ownership of B.O.A.C.-Cunard, which was not able to pay for them all at the time and therefore it was financed meanwhile by an interest-free loan which at the time of the last annual accounts of the corporation amounted to no less than

£8 million. During the whole time that the loan was current, B.O.A.C.-Cunard did not pay one penny of interest to the parent company.
The first thing that I should like to know before I accept the Minister's plea to withdraw the Amendment is what arrangements have been made by B.O.A.C.-Cunard to pay interest at commercial rates on the loan for all the time that it was in being.

Mr. Motley: The House is dealing not with a particular case, of course, but with a general prohibition for the future. If the House passes the Amendment, it will not have a bearing on previous loans. While I will, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, see that he is sent a full explanation of the questions that he is posing, I do not think that we ought to judge these matters in the light of one particular case. I have given the assurance that such loans will not be made in future without prior reference to the Minister.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I will come on to that point. I should have thought that the Minister could tell the House now whether or not arrangements will be made by B.O.A.C. for interest on this money to be paid back to B.O.A.C., which it was entitled to in the first place. I am glad to know that such loans will not be made in future, and therefore the corporation has accepted the principle which he has enunciated in the debate, that it was at fault in making the loan in the first place and does not intend to do so again in future.
If that is so, coming on to his second point, I cannot see why he is reluctant to incorporate the Amendment in the Statute. No circumstances could arise which would make a loan of this kind proper, and therefore a statutory restriction would not in effect hamper B.O.A.C.'s proper commercial interests.
If the Minister is not prepared to have it in the Act, he ought to issue a general directive to both corporations that in future they should not make loans of this kind to subsidiary companies of which part of the shareholding is private.

Mr. R. Carr: The House is in some difficulty here. On the one hand, we on this side certainly believe that


B.O.A.C. and other nationalised corporations ought to act as commercial bodies in a commercial way. This is not only putting commercial pressures upon them and opening them to commercial sorts of competition but, to be fair, it also means giving them the sort of freedom that ordinary management ought to have. For that reason, I am inclined to listen to what the Minister has to say.
On the other hand, there is our duty to act as guardians of public money. The agreement between B.O.A.C. and Cunard has been under heavy attack from the benches opposite. I do not know what the personal view of the present Minister is, but his predecessor and also the present Parliamentary Secretary made it very clear that they did not like this sort of agreement and that if they got the chance they would rescind it.
We do not take that view on this side. We believe that it can be useful for public corporations to be able to enter into associations and form subsidiary companies with private interests, and we want them to be free to do so. But, because we want them to be free to do that, we feel that we have an even greater duty to make quite sure that through that association public money cannot in any way be filtered off unfairly to the benefit of outside private interests.
No one in the House is suggesting that men of the kind who run the British Overseas Airways Corporation would deliberately do such a thing, and I want to make it very clear that there is no element of suspicion in our minds when we press this case. This is rather like justice not only having to be done, but being seen to be done. I am a little unhappy about it and I should like the Minister to try to explain a little more why this loan was interest-free in the first place, and why, for example, there should not now be a repayment of interest from B.O.A.C.-Cunard to the parent company, B.O.A.C.
If we could understand a little more why this happened in the first place, then, together with the assurance which the Minister has just given, we might be prepared not to push the matter to the point of getting it written into the Bill, but I do not think that I can just accept that without first asking the Minister to

explain a little more what the issues have been.

Mr. Mulley: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that I have any power to direct B.O.A.C. as to what it does about charging interest in future on this particular loan. I can only assume that the loan was made interest-free because it had other incidental financial advantages, but I am in this difficulty—and I think that the House ought to recognise this—that on the one hand I am criticised for not interfering, and not knowing the actual motivations and intentions of the board of B.O.A.C., and on the other hand I am criticised for undue interference in the affairs of the company and the corporation. One has to decide whether one runs the corporation on commercial lines and gives the chairman and members of the board responsibility for their commercial activities, subject to the overriding reserve powers of the Minister, or not.
Perhaps I might illustrate the kind of difficulty in which I find myself. Very properly the Plowden Report and the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), and others, raised the point that my Ministry exercised too great a technical and financial control of the aircraft industry generally, but at the same time I had to reply to an hon. Gentleman opposite who asked me to investigate a complaint which he had received from one of his constituents that a certain employee of Hawker Siddeley was earning 10s. an hour, and in the opinion of that constituent he was not worth it.
We cannot have it both ways. I do not think that it is my job to go into every particular financial transaction. I have said that I will seek an explanation from the chairman of the board, and when I receive it I shall transmit it to both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I shall find out his intentions, and give him the view of the House about the loan to B.O.A.C.-Cunard, and the fact that it thinks that interest should be paid at the proper commercial rate.
The Chairman of B.O.A.C. has given me an assurance in writing, and having regard to his standing I should have thought that the House would accept it.
In his letter of 3rd February, that is today, he said:
I would like to put in writing the substance of our discussion on the practice of B.O.A.C. in making loans to its subsidiary or associated companies as you may wish to make a statement to the House on the further stages of the Air Corporations Bill. (The making of such loans at other than commercial rates is in any case most exceptional and I do not anticipate that it will arise again in the foreseeable future.)
You know that I adhere strongly to the principles set out in the then Minister's letter to me dated 1st January, 1964, which has been published, that 'It is important that the interchange of views between the Government and the Corporations should not blur the fundamental responsibility of the Corporations to act in accordance with their commercial judgment.'
Nevertheless I accept that there is much public interest in these matters and accordingly I give you an assurance that B.O.A.C. will not make any loans at less than ruling commercial rates to its subsidiary or associated companies in which there is a private shareholding, without prior reference to you.
That seems to me to be the kind of assurance which the House can accept without breaching the fundamental issues set out in the letter of 1st January, 1964, as to the division between the Minister's responsibility for the public interest on the one hand, and the Board's responsibility for the commercial operations of the corporation on the other, and in the light of that, I ask the House to accept that assurance.

Mr. Lubbock: I should like to ask the Minister a question before he sits down. If he were chairman of an important public company which had a subsidiary company which had outside interests, and he discovered from the accounts of the public company that an interest-free loan had been made by the parent to the subsidiary, would not he feel entitled to go to the annual general meeting to ask the chairman why this loan had been made and expect to receive a full explanation at that meeting? Are not we in the position of the shareholders of such a company?

Mr. Mulley: I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have no experience of attending annual general meetings of companies, but the advice that I have been given by those who have is that they are not the best place to go to get information of a detailed character about

the affairs of the company, or about anything else.

Mr. Stainton: I hope that I might have the leave of the House to make a few comments before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
It strikes me that the Minister has been far too glib in mixing up the public purse with the private pocket, and unless he is careful he will precipitate a new rumour about Heathrow bond washing.
This loan of£8½million, interest-free, has an exact analogy in the reference made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to an ordinary public company making advances to another company in which it had no financial interest. I am sure that in those circumstances it would come in for the utmost criticism.
The Minister has adopted a false premise in deploying the argument that we do not want to fetter commercial judgment, and that we want to get this balance between freedom and control. He might do better if he could demonstrate what element of commercial judgment would be prejudiced if the Amendment were accepted, but he did not dare to extend his argument to that point.
Nevertheless, in the light of the undertaking given by the Chairman of B.O.A.C., we on this side of the House are prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I must make it clear to the Minister that we reserve our right to raise the whole question of back interest on loans furnished to date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 15, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(6) If, at the express wish of the Minister, the Corporation establishes, alters or continues to maintain an airline service and satisfies the Minister that the airline service so established, altered or continued to he maintained has been operated at a loss in any financial year after due provision is made for reserves, such loss shall be indicated separately in the accounts of the Corporation and shall be relevant to any decision of the Minister in respect of section 2(3)(a) and (b) and section 3(7) of this Act.
I think that I can explain the purpose of this Amendment quite shortly. The general policy of this side of the House is that the nationalised corporations


should be expected to operate in a commercial manner, and that they should have their commercial operations judged by commercial standards, which means, as far as possible, by the measurement of profit and loss. That is our general policy, and one reason why we have welcomed the Bill in principle from the beginning is that it is leading to that position in respect of B.O.A.C.
6.0 p.m.
But we also recognise the fact that the nationalised corporations may sometimes have to undertake non-commercial operations. Some disadvantages may attach to nationalised corporations, but one of the advantages should be that they can more easily be asked to carry out noncommercial operations than can private undertakings, and that it may be in the public interest that they should do so. But where they do so the results of those non-commercial operations should not be obscured or allowed to cloud the judgment of the question whether the corporation concerned has or has not performed as it should have done over the major part of its operations, which should be judged on commercial standards.
The Amendment therefore seeks to ensure that any loss which may be incurred on any such operations carried out by B.O.A.C. at the express wish of the Minister shall be separately shown in the accounts, and that that loss shall be relevant to any decision of the Minister's in fixing financial targets for B.O.A.C. I do not need to explain the purposes further. All that I would say in further support of the Amendment—because in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary ruled it out on several grounds, the most important of which were grounds of practicability—is that in drafting the Amendment and following this idea we are not being entirely theoretical. We are almost exactly—certainly as nearly as we can—copying the practice which has existed in Australia for some years. This is what is done in Australia, and as far as we know none of the practical difficulties to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in Committee has arisen in Australia. That is why we feel that our proposal is not only sound in theory but has some backing in practice.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I support the Amendment. I should have thought that it was the kind of Amendment which might appeal to the Government. The Government have introduced a Bill in which they clearly indicate that private companies ought to set out their accounts so that the public will know exactly how profits and losses are made. If this principle is to apply to ordinary companies it is even more important that the public should know exactly how the profits or losses of a nationalised industry are made up. This is especially so since the House of Commons must from time to time vote these nationalised industries large sums of money, which the taxpayers have to find.
Both nationalised airline corporations are running services at a loss. The surprising thing is that, as was admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, almost all, if not all, B.E.A.'s internal services are run at a loss. We do not know how much the loss is, but we know that it is a loss. We should be told how much it is, because we have to meet the bill, and also because some of us believe that these internal services are being run at a loss so that B.E.A. can unfairly compete against British Railways.
British Railways are heavily subsidised by the Government. The railwaymen are told that they cannot have a rise unless they provide increased profits and productivity, yet British Railways are competing on many main lines against a nationalised airline which is running at a loss because its prices are too low. B.E.A. is subsidising these internal lines out of other income. No doubt it would say that there is a good reason for this, namely, that it is providing feeder services. I do agree that it is impossible to apportion a sum of money in the accounts, from the income provided on the internal lines, for feeder services to the Continent.
The Government must find themselves in a Gilbertian situation, in that they are not only subsidising B.E.A. but that, because of this, they are having to subsidise British Railways even more. If the accounts could show exactly how much profit or loss is made on the internal services we would know how to deal with the matter. A smokescreen is being put up by both nationalised airlines.


They do not particularly want these figures to see the light of day, but it is the Minister's duty to tell them that they must produce the figures, and it is the duty of the House to try to make the Government act.
There is a completely different situation in B.O.A.C. to that in B.E.A. That airline runs some overseas services at a loss for prestige reasons. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary referred to them as "diplomatic reasons". He used the word "diplomatic" instead of "prestige", implying that there was a good argument for not revealing them. But basically they are run at a loss for prestige reasons and we should not use the excuse, in defence of B.O.A.C., that this matter comes into the realm of foreign affairs or diplomacy.
There may be a case for B.O.A.C. in running certain routes at a loss for prestige reasons. If the accounts showed how much actual money was being made or lost then the House of Commons and the Minister could determine whether, if, say, the loss were marginal, it would be better to hand over the route concerned to a private airline.
We already have the experience of B.O.A.C.'s giving up the very important prestige route to South America. It was running this route because it said that it had to do so in the national interest, but that it did not really want to do so. Eventually it gave up the route. British United Airways took it over and made it pay. I give the Minister credit for congratulating the independent airline upon its success on this route. Is it not conceivable that other routes might be equally marginally loss-making, and that if we could see this from the accounts we might decide that it was better to hand over these routes to independent airlines rather than allow the nationalised airline to continue to run them at a loss?
It is important that the House and the country should have information on this subject. No one wants to be unfair to the nationalised airlines, but we want to be able to determine what action we should take from a full consideration of the facts and figures. Since the Amendment calls for the facts and figures I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Rankin: I want to congratulate the Opposition on the change of front

which they have displayed tonight over holding B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. accountable for losses which they may incur. Most hon. Members will remember that it was the Air Transport Licensing Act, brought in by the party opposite when in power, which laid down the blunt injunction that B.O.A.C. must show the flag, irrespective of the cost and any effect which it might have on the corporation's accounts.
It was well known at that time that B.O.A.C. could not continue certain services without running them at a loss, however, no attempt was made then to ensure that its annual report should include an account of the losses which it was incurring as a result of the policy laid down by the Opposition when in power, thus clearly stating them to the people. A change has taken place and I welcome this sign of progress.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said that B.E.A. was running at a loss in order to compete with British Rail. One of its great losses is on the Irish services, which I assume the hon. Member uses. One would find it difficult to say that, in flying from Belfast or Dublin to this country, B.E.A. is competing directly with British Rail. It is partly, of course, but not completely. It may be true that there is competition, but I am surprised to hear the Opposition complaining about that. I would ask the hon. Gentleman and others to explain their change of attitude since we dealt with the new Clause which they withdrew. They then deplored the lack of competition, but the hon. Gentleman now regrets our using it as a reason for B.E.A. running certain routes.
There is another reason and a more important one, even if one accepts some of what the hon. Gentleman said. There is no British Rail service between the Western Islands of Scotland and the mainland. The services there are being run for social reasons. No Government—either the present Government or a Conservative Government—has ever quarrelled with the need to provide social services, nor at any time has B.E.A. ever sought to conceal the cost of its social services. The figure is well known. The loss on the Western Islands and Irish Sea services are known. B.E.A. has repeatedly stated that it could run those


services, which it was expected to run, only if it made profits on other services.
It has always been my view that the corporation should be run as a complete unit and that we should look at its total profit and loss account and not try to diversify it. Diversifying it means, in a way, exaggerating it in the public mind, and discouraging the corporation from undertaking services which are necessary for social reasons but which may not be profitable. I do not think that anything is asked for in the Amendment which is not now being done.
6.15 p.m.
I do not know the mind of the Government on these matters and I am therefore merely stating my own view—that if we were to accept the Amendment, no profound change would take place, other than, of course, the change in Opposition thinking. However, I believe that there would be a change of attitude on the part of the corporation. As I have said, the corporation might feel that it was not being encouraged to carry out essential services because it would be accused —as it has repeatedly been accused—of running unprofitable services.
On balance, I feel that the status quo is the proper attitude towards the Amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will also take that view.

Mr. George Younger: I do not want to detain the House with all the arguments which were so well put in Committee on a similar Amendment, but I wish to make two simple points. I believe that everyone in the House could accept them entirely except, unfortunately, for the Parliamentary Secretary, if what he said in Committee is to be taken as his final word. I cannot accept that it is impossible—or even nearly—so to established, within broad limits, what an existing airline service is losing or gaining.
According to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee debates, the hon. Gentleman said in reply to the Amendment that it was certainly very difficult, if not impossible, to establish this. Yet are we really to believe that the independent airlines—indeed, all airlines all over the world—do not know what any one of their services is making

or losing? Are we to imagine that the modern science of accounting is so imperfect that it is impossible to tell whether or not a loss is being made and, if it is being made, how much it is? No one in the House who has been an accountant and had experience of these things would support such a proposition.
I therefore start by making the point that I am convinced that it would be possible to establish what the services make or lose in any given year. Over the years some hon. Members have tried to obtain new or extended air services in, for example, parts of Scotland. Whenever we have approached an airline, particularly B.E.A., to start a new route the airline has, quite understandably, said, "We are already losing money on the Highland services".
The Amendment would help because it would enable the corporations to be asked to say on which services they are losing money and we would then know how much loss or profit was being made on any one service. The public of Scotland is entitled to have this picture of the situation. If we knew how much was being lost on a service we could then discuss, openly and frankly, the position with those concerned, including the local authorities and various Government Departments. We could also see how the money which is used to kep these services going is spent and I believe that this would lead to an extension of services. When one tries at present to encourage the authorities to open a new route one is told, "We are already losing money. How can you expect us to extend this type of service further?"
Throughout the world air travel is in no way a declining industry. It is rapidly expanding and we should try to create an atmosphere in which people are encouraged to open new routes. I therefore cannot agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) that the Amendment would discourage people from expanding these services. On the contrary, it would offer them the prospect of the facts being brought out into the open, with people knowing how much the individual routes were losing and where the money was going.
I hope that the Minister will give a more up-to-date and helpful reply today


than he did in Committee. If he does he will be doing a great service to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, remembering that air travel is of paramount importance to this area and that the people there want to see the routes greatly increased in number.

Mr. Burden: The Parliamentary Secretary has learned a lot about the airline business in a short time. He has been assiduous in his duties and, because he has gained this knowledge, he has frequently given way on points on which he had taken a somewhat strong line when the proposals were first made. Although he expressed the view in Committee that nothing could be done on this issue, I hope that, upon more mature consideration, he will agree that we are making a not unreasonable proposal. I suggest that this is an eminently practical proposal which could have satisfactory repercussions.
Anybody who runs a business, if he is a business man at all, knows through his accountant's costings, budgeting of fixed overheads and so on, what is likely to be his profit or loss. He knows that if his budget is not maintained a loss is likely. There should, therefore, be no difficulty in the corporations stating, within a small area of discrepancy, their losses on particular routes.
I hope that there is no sinister idea behind any possible objection to this point; that nobody believes that the public should not know which part or parts of the corporations—particularly B.E.A., since we are mainly discussing B.E.A. at the moment—are profitable and which internal services cause a loss. Why should there be anything wrong in saying—and I am assuming that the figures can be made available—that an excellent public service is being given to a certain part of the Highlands or Islands at a considerable loss? Why should B.E.A. not have the opportunity of pointing out that this or that service is causing difficulties in its balance sheet? Why should the public not be able to weigh up the efficiency of B.E.A. on certain routes which would appear to be profitable but which might not show a profit? These things are possible only if the accounts are made public in this way. Indeed, this may be a veil being drawn over the whole thing. I hope it is not.
It would be interesting to see what improvement is gradually being made in areas causing high losses, how the improvement has occurred, where losses are mounting and so on. There is nothing wrong or difficult in any of this and in these days of computers—remembering that B.E.A. is computerising a great deal of its accounts—it is merely a question of asking a machine the question and receiving the answer without half the difficulty the Minister frequently has in answering the questions hon. Members put to him.
I have known the Minister for a long time and have a great deal of respect for him. That being so, I am convinced that the Parliamentary Secretary has no desire whatever to prevent the public or this House from obtaining information that can properly be provided about the public corporations. I believe that this information could be provided without any difficulty and that it is right and proper that it should be so provided.

Mr. Doig: I have been rather surprised to find the Opposition pressing this matter as strongly as they did in Standing Committee. I am wondering who wants this information. If my right hon. Friend wants it he can get it now without any difficulty.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Why should not we have it?

Mr. Doig: I will answer that later. If it is said that the general public want the information, I have never heard their request for it. Neither have I heard a request for information about losses made on certain bus routes. Only about one-fifth of bus routes pay in my constituency. On one occasion information was published in the Press about the losses incurred on this form of transport, but nobody showed the slightest interest. That is why I wonder why the Opposition are so anxious to have this information.
From what has been said, it would seem that only the nationalised corporations are running air services at a loss. This is certainly our experience when we ask for new routes to be opened; in other words, no company, private or public, is prepared to consider running a service unless it will prove profitable in the long run. I refer to a service from the city of Dundee, and I say what I have said because from the almost


identical city of Aberdeen there is a direct service to London. That service pays, and it is now proposed to have a second service. All the indications are that this Dundee service would pay, yet we find that neither a private airline nor the corporation is prepared to look at it unless it gets a guarantee that losses will be made up—

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On that basis, the hon. Member should be supporting the Amendment, because if they indicated what their losses were on other routes and said, "This might also happen in the case of Dundee," and if this House of Commons decided that in the other case, on social grounds, a subsidy was justifiable, Dundee would clearly also qualify for a subsidy.

Mr. Doig: If the hon. Member can tell me of any way in which we can get a service run by anyone for social reasons, I shall be happy to listen. As it is, we have exhausted almost every possible means of getting a service.
My point is that the only people who would welcome the information which the Amendment seeks to get are the private airlines. They would be able to tell at a glance, without any trouble, exactly which routes it would pay them to go into and which it would pay them to keep out of. It would be very useful information.

Mr. Burden: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the private airlines have an intelligence service. They know which routes would probably prove profitable and which would probably prove unprofitable. They do not need the corporations to tell them that. The reason for this Amendment is that the corporations come from time to time to the London money market. The Stock Exchange now demands that anyone seeking new capital shall issue half-yearly accounts which must give a great deal of information. It is right and proper that the corporation should do the same.

Mr. Doig: Throughout this debate I have waited for the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) to come out with the arguments he used in Committee, but I have waited in vain. At that time I said that they were revolutionary proposals

to come from his side, and they must have been too revolutionary, because he has not repeated them—

Mr. Onslow: Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Doig: I am sorry, but there is not a lot of time—

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. I think the hon. Member is mistaken in referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I think that he must be referring to what I said—

Mr. Doig: I am not making any mistake. I can distinctly remember what happened in the Committee. The hon. Member for Worthing said that if a subsidy was justified for any air service it should be offered to any company applying to run on that route. Those were not his exact words, but that was their effect.

Mr. Higgins: I think that the hon. Member is confused and that he is actually referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

Mr. Doig: In that case I shall apologise and I shall address my remarks to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), because he has not brought this in either—

Mr. Onslow: Perhaps I might explain that as I am anxious that the House should make progress I have not sought to repeat at length the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman refers and which are on the record. I hope that he will do the same.

Mr. Doig: In that case, I am quite willing to abandon the point. I still regret that he did not repeat his remarks, because they were so silly that I prepared a careful answer and have since patiently waited for someone to repeat those remarks. I am disappointed that they have not been repeated, but I will leave the matter there.
I still cannot understand why hon. Members opposite want this information made public. Let us realise this fact. If, for example, it were to turn out, as was suggested in the Committee, that the profitable routes were those to the Continent and the unprofitable routes were those in Britain—I do not know whether or not that is true—and we were to publish the figures, what would it be?


It would be an open invitation to the private airlines to come in on the Continental routes—

Mr. Burden: They cannot do it.

Mr. Doig: It would be a great invitation for them to do that.
Secondly, it would be a great incentive to the people who used the Continental routes to agitate for a reduction in fares. If this Amendment were to succeed it would mean that instead of a loss being carried partly by these other people from their profitable routes it would have to be carried partly by the British taxpayer. Of the two, I know which I prefer, and I know which most other people would prefer. The best thing is to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has moved the Amendment very persuasively, and I can frankly tell the House that my right hon. Friend and I have every sympathy with the objectives hon. Members opposite have in mind. They want to clarify the operations of the corporations in order to make sure where they are operating in a commercial fashion and where they are not. We are entirely with them there. The public are entitled to have this information about the operations of the corporations they own. We do not, however, agree with the form of this Amendment, although I freely acknowledge that it is very skilfully drafted.
First, there are no B.E.A. services to which this Amendment could refer, because B.E.A. is not running any services at a loss at the express wish of the Minister. As for B.O.A.C., there was the case of Kuwait Airways, which B.O.A.C. did not actually operate but in which it invested at the request of the Minister. B.O.A.C. showed the loss it had incurred on that investment.
The Scottish Highlands and Islands routes on which B.E.A. incurs a loss are not operated at the express wish of the Minister. They are an historic responsibility. Of course, if they were withdrawn by B.E.A. there would be such a public uproar, particularly in Scotland, that it would perhaps be necessary for my right hon. Friend to express the wish that B.E.A. should continue to operate them. In that case, of course, the ex-

press-wish provision in the Amendment would apply.
B.E.A. already shows the losses it incurs on these routes. Here I would refer the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), in particular, to page 87 of the last annual report of B.E.A. He will there see in very great detail the revenue account and the expenditure account for the Scottish Highlands and Islands services, and he will notice a total loss on operating account of£147,879. Therefore, B.E.A. is already showing what loss it incurs on these "social service" routes. B.O.A.C. has acted similarly in relation to its investment in Kuwait Airways. The fact remains that there is no service directly operated at a loss by either of the corporations at the express wish of the Minister in the way mentioned in the Amendment. It is, however, the policy of my right hon. Friend to adhere to the dictum laid down by the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), who wrote to the Chairman of B.O.A.C. on 1st January, 1964:
If the national interest should appear, whether to the Corporation or to the Government, to require some departure from the strict commercial interests of the Corporation, this should be done only with the express agreement or at the express request of the Minister. How losses, if any, resulting from such a political decision should be presented in the accounts will depend on the circumstances in each case.
We do not in the event wish to be tied on such an express wish by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. to show the losses in the exact form proposed in the Amendment, although the House would want to be advised, as indeed my right hon. Friend wishes, as a matter of good commercial practice that the corporation should show results in a particular case where a loss is incurred, and that is already published. We do not think it would be to the advantage of the corporations or in the public interest for this provision to be written into the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has said something rather important. He has said that where there is a continuous loss it may be that the Minister would want to point it out and ask that the matter should be rectified. B.E.A. makes losses, as I indicated, on all internal services. Many people take the view that B.E.A. need not necessarily make


a loss but is doing so by over-cutting. Will the Minister say if he wants B.E.A. as an objective in its internal services to run them profitably?

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) made a point in his speech which is not relevant to this Amendment. Operations of B.E.A. on domestic routes are not conducted at a loss at the express wish of the Minister. So his observations do not apply to this Amendment.

Mr. R. Carr: Mr. R. Carr indicated assent.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Mitcham agrees with me. The description which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford has given of the services is also not correct. B.E.A.'s domestic services do not all run at a loss, but they run at an overall loss. Some run at a profit but, when added together, there is a loss. I hope that will clarify the mind of the hon. Member. Certainly none is operated at a loss at the express wish of the Minister, so this Amendment would not apply to those services.
I do not rest my objection to the Amendment on the point I raised in Committee that it would be difficult for the loss to be identified, but I am sure the House will agree that there could possibly be complications in this respect. The allocation of overheads, for instance, could be a matter of dispute. We have also to consider whether some part of the operation of a service run at a loss would not be to the commercial advantage of the corporation on another of its routes. These are matters which could be subject to disputes. I draw these points to the attention of the House, but I do not rest my objection to the Amendment upon them. I ask the right hon. Member not to press his Amendment in view of the points made today and in Committee.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Stainton: While we are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his remarks, I must make quite clear that in our opinion he has failed completely to embrace one of the two important issues in the Amendment. The identification of losses on those routes run at the express wish of the Minister is the first objective of the Amendment. The second is that

where losses are incurred on those routes losses should be borne in mind and relevant to any decision of the Minister in respect of Clause 2(3,a), which is the determination of the dividend and that the losses shall be deducted from profit before deciding dividend. There is also an aspect which should appeal very much to hon. Members from Scotland and this would vastly strengthen the case—

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member will remember that in Committee I made the point that the financial duty of B.E.A. is assessed at a lower rate according to its responsibility on routes in Scotland, so we already accept the point which he is proceeding to make.

Mr. Stainton: I do not accept that as an answer to my point. We are concerned principally with B.O.A.C. at this stage, in fact exclusively for it is in Amendment No. 9 that we refer to operations by B.E.A. Even in the case of B.E.A. I have severe reservations about the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The first point is about identification of the losses and the second is the relevance of those losses to determining the profits under Clause 2(3,a) out of which dividends are to be paid. Clause 2(3,b), determines the size of the reserve or the conversion from time to time of that reserve fund into additional share capital. If the Amendment were accepted losses on routes run at the express wish of the Minister would have direct relevance to the size of those funds.
The Amednment is also worded to bring into the net of Clause 3(7) where the Minister seeks to give himself powers as from three years hence to claw back to the Treasury any accumulated surplus. We say that before taking back that surplus regard should be had to the losses imposed on the corporation at the express wish of the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary takes refuge in the argument that the express wish of the Minister is an irrelevance since at present there are no routes run at a loss at the express wish of the Minister and even on the B.E.A. Highlands and Islands route on which the figures are admittedly shown, the services are not run at the express wish of the Minister but merely as a result of an historical occurrence. We are legislating for the future, perhaps for a decade or two hence. I therefore fail to see that because


a situation cannot be demonstrated to obtain at the moment we should not make what we regard as an eminently sensible provision to put into balance the whole of the financial obligations of the corporation.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary did not rest his argument on the difficulty of allocating profit or loss to various lines and the difficulty of allocation of overheads. I fail to see how he could do so and at the same time refer us to a schedule dealing with the

Highlands and Islands services in the B.E.A. account. I am glad that we have reached the point where the Parliamentary Secretary has rejected ideas expressed in Committee that this kind of exercise is quite impossible and impracticable. We on this side of the House are determined to adhere to this Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 112. Noes 123.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[6.48 p.m.


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Grant, Anthony
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Awdry, Daniel
Grant-Ferris, R.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mitchell, David


Bessell, Peter
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
More, Jasper


Biffen, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Hadclyffe, Sir Charles


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Onslow, Cranley


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John


Box, Donald
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Hooson, H. E.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pym, Francis


Bullus Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smith, John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Corfield, F. V.
Kilfedder, James A.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crawley, Aidan
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmjd, Sir Henry
Longbottom, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Dean, Paul
Longden, Gilbert
Weatherill, Bernard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveys, W. H.
Webster, David


Doughty, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Whitelaw, William


Eden, Sir John
Mac Arthur, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R. V. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdalr (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wise, A. R.


Emery, Peter
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir john
McLaren, Martin



Gammans, Lady
Maddan, W. F. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Mr. Ian Fraser and


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
Mr. Dudley Smith.


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hazell, Bert


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Holman, Percy


Atkinson, Norman
Donnelly, Desmond
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, Maurice
Howie, W.


Boston, Terence
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bradley, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Floud, Bernard
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gourlay, Harry
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Coleman, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp;Chatham)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hannan, William
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Dell, Edmund
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Loughlin, Charles




McBride, Neil
Pane, Derek (King's Lynn)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


MacColl, James
Palmer, Arthur
Small, William


MacDermot, Niall
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Malnnes, James
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Parker, John
Stonehouse, John


Mack[...]e, John (Enfield, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


McLeavy, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marsh, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Popplewell, Ernest
Tuck, Raphael


Mikardo, Ian
Prentice, R. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Millan, Bruce
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn
Weitzman, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K.(St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Murray, Albert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Newens, Stan
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Zilliacus, K.


Norwood, Christopher
Silverman, Julius (Aston)



Ogden, Eric
Slieffington, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oswald, Thomas
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.

Clause 5.—(FINANCIAL DUTIES OF B.E.A.)

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 26, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:

(1) The Minister shall from time to time determine with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the British European Airways Corporation, as respects such period as he may so determine, the rate of return on net assets which he considers it is reasonable for the Corporation to achieve in that period; and the Minister may, with the like approval and after such consultation as aforesaid, vary a determination under this section in respect of any period by a further determination.
(2) In subsection (1) above the reference to the rate of return on net assets is a reference to the amount of profits for the period in question (as defined for the purposes of section 2(6) of this Act but before deducting interest on moneys borrowed by the Corporation) expressed as a percentage of the total assets of the Corporation after deducting liabilities of a current nature.
(3) The Minister shall give notice to the Corporation of any determination under subsection (1) above.
(4) The Corporation shall conduct its affairs during any period in respect of which a determination has been made under subsection (1) above with a view to achieving a rate of return in that period not less than that specified by the determination as for the time being in force.
(5) The Corporation shall from time to time during any such period as aforesaid review the financial results of its operations during the preceding part of the period, and if it appears to the Corporation that those results have been such that, unless special measures are taken, the Corporation is unlikely to be able to perform its obligation under subsection (4) above, the Corporation shall forthwith inform the Minister of that fact and consider what special measures can be taken, and the Corporation shall inform the Minister of the special measures which it proposes should be taken.
(6) If, at the express wish of the Minister, the Corporation establishes, alters or continues

to maintain an airline service and satisfies the Minister that the airline service so established, altered or continued to be maintained has been operated at a loss in any financial year after due provision is made for reserves, such loss shall be indicated separately in the accounts of the Corporation and shall be relevant to any decision of the Minister in respect of section 5(3) of this Act.
(7) The Corporation shall ensure that any moneys advanced to subsidiary or associated companies of the Corporation, where the other sole shareholder is not a nationalised corporation (in which case this subsection will not apply), bear interest at the commercial rate applicable for the time being.
(8) In addition to its obligations to report under sections 22 and 23 of the principal Act, the Corporation shall, by the end of the thirty-second calendar week of each financial year, publish an interim statement of results covering the first six months of operations, which interim statement will embrace as minimum requirements, the corresponding stipulations currently in force for companies whose shares are quoted on the London Stock Exchange, together with a summary of important movements on capital account and a review by the Corporation of major trends affecting its profitability.
The Opposition believe that, as far as possible, the financial duties laid upon the two corporations should be the same. We realise that they cannot be exactly the same, because the Bill introduces the experiment of an equity holding in B.O.A.C. but not in B.E.A. Therefore, there must be a technical difference between the financial duties to take account of that capital structure. Apart from such differences as are required by the capital structure, the Opposition feel strongly that the financial duties imposed on the two corporations by Parliament should be identical. We can see no reason in common sense or from any other point of view why there should be a difference.
When the Bill came before us we thought that it was extraordinary that, although the Government were for the first time specifically laying down the financial duties of these corporations they chose to provide a different standard for B.E.A. from that provided for B.O.A.C. Hon. Members will see that in the first five subsections of the Amendment we duplicate exactly the corresponding five subsections of Clause 3 which lays down the financial duties of B.O.A.C. With the substitution of the name of the other corporation, they are the same. This is the main purpose of the Amendment.
The three remaining subsections of the Amendment deal with slightly different matters which we have already debated in connection with B.O.A.C. either in the House or in Committee. Subsection (6) deals with the non-commercial operations of B.E.A., the matter which we have just discussed with reference to B.O.A.C. Subsection (7) deals with interest on loans to subsidiary companies, a matter which we discussed earlier in connection with B.O.A.C. Subsection (8) lays a requirement on B.E.A. to produce interim reports, and this we raised in Committee in connection with B.O.A.C.
The last three subsections raise three separate matters. It is to the first five subsections that we wish the Minister to address particular attention because it is to those that we attach the greatest importance. These are the subsections which define for B.E.A. its financial duties in exactly the same way as for B.O.A.C'., and it seems to us in logic and commercial sense the right thing to do.

Mr. Mulley: It may be convenient if I indicate the Government's view at this stage. I agree that it is an extremely big issue, although it does not require a long debate, there being a clear difference of view on, perhaps, a question not so much of principle as of timing. I accept the very proper view put by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that we should not seek, just because the points are contained in the Amendment, to traverse ground already covered on interest charges and non-commercial services. However, with reference to subsection (8) of the Amendment, I should say for the record—I think that it will

be of interest to the House—that both corporations have agreed and will make interim statements on the lines proposed in the Amendment, starting from the next financial year, that is, making their interim statements public in the autumn. In any event, it would not have been right, I think, to lay down a tight rigmarole of this kind, but the corporations will seek to give, broadly, the same kind of information as is given by public companies along the lines indicated by the London Stock Exchange requirement. I hope that this will be acceptable to the House. I am sure that it will be an improvement in the information which hon. Members and the public should have about the operations of the public corporations.
The main issue is simple, but difficult. Should we impose the same kind of financial targets, the same kind of financial requirements, on British European Airways as we have imposed on B.O.A.C.? The Government's view is that it is neither possible nor proper to do so without a restriction of the capital of the corporation so that it is on the same lines as that of B.O.A.C. There is an immense difference now between the two corporations in the sense that B.O.A.C. has Exchequer dividend capital and to a large extent, therefore, does not have to pay interest on that part of its capital and is subject to the other requirements laid down in Clause 3.
On the other hand, there is no suggestion, and there is no possibility in the present Bill, of doing a complete reorganisation of the capital of B.E.A. so that it, too, should have some Exchequer dividend capital. It may well be argued that it ought to have. It may be argued that this ought to be a principle applied widely to public corporations throughout nationalised industry. The Government do not rule this out. As was made clear when the Bill was introduced, the purpose of the new kind of capital structure proposed under the Bill is in the nature of an experiment, a pilot scheme, and we recommend it to the House on this basis. I am sure that if it succeeds, my colleagues and I would wish to think about it further with reference not only to the other air corporation but to the new Airports Authority as well, which at present stands on the same basis as


B.E.A., not on the basis now proposed for B.O.A.C.
One has to judge whether the new capital structure, the new system of accountability, proposed for B.O.A.C. should be applied, rather arbitrarily, without a capital reorganisation, to B.E.A. simply because it also is an air corporation. I think that the proper view is that, as we are dealing with B.O.A.C. as a special case, as a pilot scheme, one should distinguish its position, financial target and accountability not only from B.E.A. but from all public corporations and nationalised industries which have not got this element of Exchequer capital.

Mr. Stainton: To make that argument logically complete, the right hon. Gentleman should not just reject it on the ground that the capital structure of B.E.A. is different from that of B.O.A.C. He must show the House why, because it is different, it is impossible to apply the disciplines which we suggest.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman can have his own view about what I ought to do. I shall carry on trying to explain the matter as I see it. I do not accept the argument that, simply because these are two corporations dealing with airway matters, they must somehow be brought together although their capital structure and the history of their financial affairs are quite different. Incidentally, although the Opposition are quite willing to apply their suggestion to B.E.A., they leave the Airports Authority out although it is concerned very much with air matters.
I take the view that we should try this scheme with B.O.A.C. and follow for B.E.A. what is laid down in Clause 5(1) as it stands, which is related to the doctrine established by the previous Government in Cmnd. 1337 for the financial and economic obligations of the nationalised industries. For the first time, it is given statutory form for B.E.A. in that subsection:
The British European Airways Corporation shall so conduct its affairs as to secure that its revenue is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said from

time to time, the Government are reviewing the development of the nationalised industries. We do not stand on any particular formula. It is in this context that the experiment of the new arrangement set out in the Bill is of interest and relevance. It is proper to have a pilot scheme in one authority of this kind and not seek to apply targets and financial rules which are not strictly appropriate to another concern merely because both are in the same line of business.
We have to distinguish between this special arrangement for B.O.A.C. and the rules laid down on financial targets and pursued vigorously by my colleagues for all the other public corporations other than B.O.A.C., for which, as I say, special provision has been made for special reasons.

Mr. R. Carr: I am afraid that the Minister has not satisfied us. He asked why we should do this for B.E.A. and not for the Airports Authority. There is a simple reason. The Airports Authority does not come within the Bill and we would not be in order to try to apply this provision to it. If it had been included in the Bill we might well have tried to do so.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that he saw no particular reason why B.E.A. should be put on the basis we propose just because another airline is on that basis. But the Bill puts B.E.A. on the same basis as, for example, the National Coal Board. To me there is more logic in putting one airline on the same basis as another than there is in putting an airline on the same basis as the National Coal Board.
I believe that it is true that the Minister sets a target of financial performance for B.E.A. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in both Governments have done so. But if it is done, why not say so in the Bill? If we are to say in this Bill that the Minister should set a target for B.O.A.C. and if, for many years, Ministers of Aviation have set targets for B.E.A., why not say that in legislation as well? It seems nonsense that the Government should not be prepared to say so in legislation. The capital structure of B.O.A.C. has nothing to do with the principle. The two corporations may have different


capital structures but that does not vitiate the principle of setting out in legislation the target appropriate to the capital structure.

Mr. Mulley: I said that financial targets are set out not only for B.E.A. but also—and in this we follow the line of the last Government—for other nationalised industries. The difference is not over whether there should be a target but over whether it should be a statutory target. If the right hon. Gentleman now takes the view so strongly that it should be statutory, one may inquire why, in their many legislative arrangements, the last Government did not impose statutory targets for public corporations. They are developing a new philosophy?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Carr: I need not detain the House long on this point. We are moving forward. It is a poor argument to say that because one did or did not do something five or ten years ago one should not do it in future. We are all able to learn by experience and I admit that we did not do what we now propose. Statutory financial targets were not set. Now, however, the House is writing into this Bill a target for B.O.A.C. and we think it logical and right that we should do the same for B.E.A.

In fairness to the two corporations, I should point out that the different structures they have from now on will allow B.O.A.C. on paper to produce a much more favourable result than B.E.A. will be able to produce. That should be clearly stated. One way of making it clear is to judge the two corporations not just by what their results appear to be but how they are doing in relation to the targets that the Minister sets for them. He should set one target for B.O.A.C. and another for B.E.A. and be known to have done so. Then the public at large will judge the two corporations not by superficial differences which flow from capital structure but how they do or do not match up to the targets the Minister sets.

Mr. Mikardo: It is true that the fact that the party opposite did not do these things for 13 years is no reason for saying that they should not be done now, but it is a good reason for saying that it provides evidence that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends did not really believe that this should be done and that what they are doing now is therefore a charade.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 106.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[7.16 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Blackburn, F.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Boston, Terence
Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Murray, Albert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Howie, W.
Newens. Stan


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Norwood, Christopher


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, Arthur


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Parglter, G. A.


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


de Freltas, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavltt, Laurence


Dell, Edmund
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn, John
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest C.


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Popplewell, Ernest


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, R. E.


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Probert, Arthur


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Loughlin, Charles
Rees, Merlyn


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
McBride, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacColl, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacDermot, Niall
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K.(St. Pancras, N.)


Floud, Bernard
McInnes, James
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackle, John (Enfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Freeson, Reginald
McLeavy, Frank
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Gourlay, Harry
Marsh, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwieh)




Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Small, William
Varley, Eric G.
Zilliacus, K.


Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Wallace, George



Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Storehouse, John
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Grey.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)





NOES


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, W. F. M.


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Biffen, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J,
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, M, (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
More, Jasper


Box, Donald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Onslow, Cranley


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hay, John
Peel, John


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Hooson, H. E.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pym, Francis


Buxton, Ronald
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shepherd, William


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooke, Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, John


Cooper, A. E.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kilfedder, James A.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kirk, Peter
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Curran, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Ceoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ward, Dame Irene


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longbottom, Charles
Weatherill, Bernard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Webster, David


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Whitelaw, William


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, Sir John
Mac Arthur, Ian
Wise, A. R.


Gardner, Edward
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Younger, Hn. George


Gibson-Watt, David
Mackie, George V. (C'ness &amp; S'land)



Goodhew, Victor
McLaren, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Tan Fraser and Mr. Mitchell.

Clause 7.—(PENSIONS.)

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 7, after "Corporations", to insert:
and with any organisation representative of the employees to whom the regulations will relate which appears to him to be appropriate".
As the House is aware, subsection (3) requires the Minister to consult the Corporations before making any regulations to allow employees of subsidiaries as well as those of the corporations themselves to participate in the airways corporations joint pension scheme. In Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) sought to move an Amendment to require the Minister to consult representatives of employees. Unfortunately, owing to the speed with which we conducted our proceedings in Committee, he did not have an opportunity to move his Amendment. However, we are grateful to him for drawing to our attention the point which

he had in mind and we attempt to meet it by the Amendment.
We believe that there is an advantage in consultation taking place with organisations representative of the employees before the regulations are implemented. These consultations will be with the employees side of the National Joint Council, but they may also be with other representatives where appropriate. We believe that this will help to confirm the already existing good relations with employees in the corporations and the subsidiaries.

Mr. Mikardo: I desire in a single sentence only warmly to thank my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend for their kindness in moving this Amendment to meet the point which I tried to meet in Committee in words less comprehensive and less felicitous than those of my hon. Friend. It is very I am sure, will be much appreciated by kind of them to take this trouble which,


all the members of the pension fund who are, of course, virtually all the employees of the corporations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(OTHER AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 20, at the end to insert:
(2) In section 23(6) of the principal Act (each of the Corporations to provide the Minister with information relating to the undertaking of the Corporation and of any associate of the Corporation) for the words from "undertaking of the corporation" to "or any such associate)" there shall be substituted the words "property, financial position, activities or proposed activities of the corporation or of any subsidiary of the corporation".

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if we take the rest of the Amendments together with this.

Mr. Stonehouse: The object of these Amendments is to facilitate the consolidation of the Air Corporations Act which, we hope, will soon follow the passage of the Bill and it is to remove the word "associate" from the text of the Bill, a word which is now obsolete. The secondary purpose of the Amendment to Section 23(6) is to clarify what is required from the corporations.
7.30 p.m.
In its present form the Section was intended to provide for the situation when the corporations were supported by subsidies in the form of Exchequer grants. Before making these grants the Minister got considerable information about the undertakings of the corporation and the undertakings of any associate. Nowadays as the powers have lapsed the information required from the corporations is mainly of financial forecasts for the purpose, for example, of negotiating financial targets and capital investment plans.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(REPEALs)

Amendments made: In page 11, column 3. leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert "Sections 13 to 17."

In line 13, column 3, leave out "definition of" and insert "definitions of 'associate' and".—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

Title

In line 8, leave out "23(4)" and insert "23".—[Mr. Stonehouse.]

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not think that there is much need for anything further to be said. There have been, both in Committee and today, some different views on matters of detail but the principle of the Bill, the reconstruction of the capital of B.O.A.C. and the other matters connected with it have commended themselves to the House, as has also the introduction of this novel system of public participation on an equity basis in a public corporation.
I should like to thank all those who have participated in our deliberations, in Committee and today. I am satisfied that as a result of our debates, the Bill is better than when it started. I very much hope that, having given this sound financial structure to B.O.A.C., the corporation will justify the faith which the Government and the House have shown in it. I hope and believe that it will be able to hold its own in the severe competition met in world airline services today.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: I should like briefly to send this Bill on its way with good wishes from the Opposition. We made clear on Second Reading that we approved of the Bill in principle. For B.O.A.C. this was essentially a matter of putting final touches to a reorganisation which has been set on foot and largely undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) when he was Minister of Aviation. We also welcome the original suggestion in the Bill, for which I gladly give credit to the Government—the idea of equity participation. I hope that the experiment will prove successful and that it will be able to be extended to B.E.A. and other public corporations.
The Bill is still a little untidy, and I drew attention at the end of my Second Reading speech to the need for consolidation. I was particularly glad to hear the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago. In the course of dealing with this Bill in Committee and


on consideration it has been improved, and I should like to take some credit for the Opposition for that. If I take some credit for the Opposition I should also like to give thanks to the Government for having acted constructively on some, if not all, of the points which we have urged upon them.
I support the Third Reading of this Bill and in doing so wish the corporations, which will operate under it within the somewhat new framework, all the success which I know we all want them to have.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.36 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
A sentence in the Gracious Speech on the opening of this Session of Parliament indicated that the Government were studying, with the medical profession, ways of improving the family doctor service and would introduce the necessary legislation. The Bill before the House today redeems that pledge of legislation. In itself, it represents only a small part of the outcome of the negotiations that I have been conducting with representatives of the general practitioners.
Perhaps the House will bear with me if I begin by very briefly setting this in its wider context. We are aiming to bring about no less than a radical transformation of general practice as we have known it since the Health Service began in 1948. Since general practice was last debated in this House, in March of last year, officials of the Health Department and I have held upwards of 40 meetings, most of them lasting a whole day, with representatives of the family doctors. We have already published two Reports containing not only the proposals reflected in the Bill, but a number of others including a totally revised system of payment. We hope to publish a third Report before very long, and the profession will then be offered a completely new contract following the completion of the Independent Review Body's current review of the levels of remuneration. Meanwhile, other measures have already been put into effect designed to help the family doctor with the problems he faces and to reduce his load in some degree.
The essence of the proposed new contract is flexibility. Up till now financial reward depended almost entirely on the number of patients on the doctor's list, irrespective of the circumstances of his practice or of anything else. Under the new system account will be taken of many other factors, of the nature of the premises and of the staff employed, of the doctor's age and experience, of the


unattractiveness of an area, of practice in groups, of the need to employ a locum in sickness, of night calls, responsibility for looking after elderly people and so on. Much of this is made possible by the introduction of a basic allowance, expressed as an annual sum and not as so much per person on the list, which will constitute a substantial part of total remuneration.
The new contract, which will also include a re-casting of the doctor's detailed terms of service, represents the first major change in the arrangements for general practice since the National Health Service began. That we have been able to hammer this out has been due in no small measure to the hard work and the fair-mindedness of the profession's team of negotiators, to whom I am glad to pay tribute. Although they have had no firm mandate to commit their colleagues in advance of the outcome of negotiations, their constructive help has been invaluable in working out the new contract. In this connection I would like to pay a no less sincere tribute to my officials who have taken part in these negotiations and for whom this has represented a very considerable additional burden to that which they normally carry, which in itself is by no means light.
Meanwhile, the Government have been able to lake, with the agreement of the profession, certain administrative action to help general practitioners in advance of the new contract. Perhaps the most important step was taken in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who has made changes in the rules for national insurance certification. These changes should result in a very substantial reduction in the number of insurance certificates doctors have to give, and especially in visits to and by the doctor for the sole purpose of certification. The new rules came into operation at the beginning of this week, and I hope that they will relieve the doctor during this difficult winter without in any way acting to the disadvantage of the patient.
I should like to single out three smaller hut, I think, significant measures. First, the free issue of disposable syringes and needles. This is a matter which has been debated in the House. Even though in principle the doctor is responsible for providing his own equipment, the need for

sterility when giving injections and the doctor's difficulty in securing it in my view fully justified Government assistance Free supplies have been available to family doctors since about the middle of last month.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend and I launched a campaign to seek the cooperation of the public in making the best use of family doctors' time. We have done our utmost to avoid saying anything which might discourage anyone from seeking medical treatment or advice which he needs or genuinely thinks he needs. Our aim has been directed rather at that thoughtless minority—and it is a small minority—who make inconsiderate demands on their family doctor. So long as there is a shortage of doctors, it is essential that we make the most economical use of the available manpower in the interests of patients no less than of the doctors themselves.
Since October, millions of leaflets explaining how to make the best use of doctors' services have been distributed for display in waiting rooms, and more recently a poster on the same theme has been issued. Short television films on the subject have been shown with the co-operation of the B.B.C. and Independent Television companies. Hon. Members may have noticed that letters are now being franked with the slogan "Help save your doctor's time". This is a continuing campaign, but its effect is likely to be most helpful in the winter when the pressure on the doctor is at its heaviest.
The third measure which we have been able to take to help the general practitioner—this is something which bears more directly on the subject matter of the Bill—was the introduction of the scheme to provide Exchequer grants of one-third of the cost of approved projects for improving medical practice premises. This should be a considerable encouragement to doctors to provide a high standard of surgery premises and, in turn, will mean a better service to patients.
That we have been able to do so much without legislation is perhaps a tribute to the far-sightedness of our predecessors who put the original National Health Service Act on the Statute Book. Indeed, the need for one of the provisions in the Bill has arisen only because that Act was later amended. As things stand, there


are two proposals which require legislation, and I now come to the provisions of the Bill.
One of the proposals in the profession's charter was that an independent corporation should be set up with adequate public funds at its disposal to finance the purchase and modernisation of doctors' surgeries and equipment. This was a proposal to which the profession attached great importance, and it was one of the four issues on which it sought prior assurance before negotiation proper on a new contract could even begin.
Most family doctors, like other self-employed professional men, practise from premises which they themselves provide. Nonetheless, I am glad to say that local authorities and, in Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are making surgery premises available for renting on an increasing kale, particularly in health centres.
There has been a welcome and surprisingly rapid growth of interest in health centre provision. Up to October 1964, when there was a change of Government, only 24 health centres had been opened. Nine more have been opened since then or are being built or extended, and active planning is going ahead on another 29, and about 120 further schemes are receiving local consideration. It is to be expected, however, that for some time to come the majority of doctors will prefer to make their own arrangements for accommodation, and I am sure that it would not be right to try to force doctors into publicly-owned premises.
What is important—this has been brought out time and again in my negotiations with the profession—is that working in a group is the best way for the family doctor to overcome the dangers of professional isolation. Such group working not only makes the best use of medical manpower, but makes it easier to support the doctors with services of trained non-medical staff of several kinds. Encouragement to group practice is embodied in the new contract.
But, of course, modern medicine requires modern purpose-built premises, and the problem of financing such premises is becoming increasingly difficult for the doctor. The professions repre-

sentative told me, and I fully accept, that many doctors experience difficulty in obtaining the loans which they need from ordinary commercial sources because of the security required and the limited periods over which the loans have to be repaid. For example, a commercial lender may feel able to advance only a smaller percentage of the value of purpose-built or adapted surgery premises than the doctor needs. The shortness of the period over which the lender requires repayment may involve the doctor in excessive annual liabilities. The doctor joining a partnership and requiring to purchase a share in jointly-owned premises, perhaps from a retiring partner, faces a particular difficulty since he cannot offer the premises as security.
The profession's solution was that the corporation which it had suggested should encourage doctors to practise from good premises by lending money repayable over long periods, perhaps over the whole of the doctor's career, for the purchase or improvement of premises; by acquiring existing purpose-built premises which it would then lease or sell to the doctors as they preferred; by itself building new premises for lease to doctors; and by helping to provide medical and practice equipment.
The Government have been able to go a long way towards meeting this proposal, and the first report of the discussions on the charter records our undertaking to promote legislation to establish a new statutory body with power to make loans to doctors for the purchase, erection and improvement of practice premises and with a reserve power to make loans for the purchase of equipment. Indeed, even before this, in the letter which I sent to the Chairman of the General Medical Services Committee a few days after the charter was submitted to me and from which I read to the House on 17th March last. I had accepted that doctors needed help with the provision of premises.
The Government did not, however, think it necessary that the new body should itself also be empowered to acquire or build premises for leasing to doctors since we felt that it would he inappropriate to duplicate the arrangements which already exist for this to be done by public authorities, which, as I have said, are being increasingly used.


The Bill provides, however, that in suitable cases the new body might acquire a site as distinct from premises which it would then let to the doctor on a long building lease at an appropriate ground rent. Under this kind of arrangement the doctor would be responsible for building the premises, probably with the aid of a loan from the corporation, but he would not have to find the capital cost of the site.
The primary purpose of the Bill is, therefore, to provide for the establishment of the new body, which will be known as the General Practice Finance Corporation. The Corporation will be available to all family doctors in Great Britain who provide general medical services under the National Health Service. The Corporation will raise its funds by borrowing on the market, but the Treasury is being empowered to guarantee both the principal and payment of interest on the money borrowed. From inquiries that I have made, I am satisfied that the Corporation will, in practice, experience no difficulty in finding the money it needs. The profession's leaders understand that it will have to operate on a sound commercial basis. It will be a means not of subsidising doctors but of giving them access to capital which they might not otherwise be able to obtain, and under far more flexible arrangements than could reasonably be expected of the ordinary commercial lender.
Provision of the capital for the building of premises is not, of course, the whole story. The capital must be serviced, and this raises the question of continuing practice expenses. This is outside the scope of the Bill, but to complete the picture I might, perhaps, be allowed to remind the House that the new proposals for remuneration of family doctors provide for payment by the executive council of a notional rent to those who own their premises. This arrangement should assist those who have provided purpose-built accommodation of a high standard whether they have borrowed the capital from the Corporation or not. The Bill will not affect the existing arrangements under which doctors can rent premises from a public authority. These doctors, like others who use rented accommodation, would receive reimbursement of reasonable expenditure on actual rents.
I come now to the second main provision of the Bill, which relates to payment by salary. Another proposal in the doctors' own charter was that family doctors should have the option of different methods of payment, including salary. The Government could not allow an entirely free option to every doctor, but we have agreed that this method of payment should be brought into use for those who desire it wherever the circumstances are suitable. The second report of the discussions contain proposals for this. These proposals cannot be implemented without amendment of the law. Hence the further provision in the Bill which I will explain in detail a little later.
I now turn to the Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the setting up of the Corporation and makes clear its status as an independent body. Details of its constitution are included in the Schedule. This provides for the Corporation to consist of up to eight members, including a chairman and deputy-chairman, all of whom will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself acting jointly after consultation with the medical profession. The majority of the members will need to be chosen mainly for their knowledge of financial and business affairs, but I am sure that the Corporation should have first-hand advice from practising doctors. I have told the representatives of the profession that we intend to appoint one or two family doctors to serve on it on a part-time basis. Provision is made for members of the Corporation to be paid salaries or fees as well as expenses from Exchequer funds should this prove necessary. The Corporation will appoint its own staff and meet the costs and other administrative expenses from its own financial resources.
Clause 2 deals with the ways in which the Corporation will be able to help doctors. Its main function will be to make loans to family doctors for the acquisition of sites or premises, the conversion or construction of premises and the alteration, enlargement, repair or improvement of premises. It will also be able to advance money to enable a doctor to repay a loan previously obtained from another source for one of these purposes—where, for example, a doctor wants to spread the repayment over a longer period than the terms of


the original loan permit. The site or premises must be used wholly or in part for the purpose of general practice in the National Health Service but it may include a combined surgery/residence.
Clause 2 also gives the Corporation the necessary power to purchase sites for leasing to doctors. It is envisaged that the Corporation should buy the sites and retain their ownership, thus leaving the practitioner with only the expense of building premises, on the basis of a building lease and paying a suitable ground rent. A practitioner taking such a lease would not be debarred from receiving from the Corporation a loan for the erection of the premises on the site. The Corporation will not have the power of compulsory acquisition.
Clause 3 enables the Corporation to lend money to doctors for the purchase of equipment if provision is made for this by Order made by Statutory Instrument. It is thus a reserve power which would be exercised at some time in the future only if there is evidence that practitioners are generally failing to obtain the assistance they need for the purchase of equipment from existing sources of finance. I have no evidence that this is so at present.
Clause 4 deals with the manner in which the Corporation is to operate. It requires that the Corporation should carry out its functions in accordance with a scheme which it has prepared and had approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself acting jointly and to comply with any directions which we may feel it necessary to issue.
The Corporation will in any event need to draw up working rules for its guidance and the provision, in effect, requires it to ensure that these rules are acceptable as a basis for operating the Government guaranteed money so that it knows from the outset where it stands.
We envisage that, apart from setting out the general framework within which the Corporation will operate, the main point to be covered in the scheme will be the need to confirm that the appropriate Minister is satisfied as to the location and the standard of the premises before a loan is issued. The object of this is to ensure that practice premises are so sited that

they may best serve local needs and to facilitate the co-ordination of general practice with other branches of the Health Service.
We would not expect the Finance Corporation itself to form views on the siting of premises, since this requires local knowledge and is a matter for the Health Service authorities and the profession. It is, therefore, intended, as the profession is aware, that the Corporation should ascertain from Health Ministers that premises are suitably sited and are of a suitable standard before making advances and that Ministers should look for advice to the Health Service authorities concerned. There will be a central committee, on which the profession again will be represented, to advise on policy, including general questions of priority, and on referred cases. Special administrative arrangements will be made for Scotland.
Clauses 5 to 8 deal with the financial arrangements. The Corporation will be under an obligation to conduct its affairs in such a way that over a period it breaks even financially. It will raise its funds by borrowing and will pay the market rate of interest. In fixing its lending rate, it will need to take into account not only the interest which it has to pay on the borrowed capital, but also its administrative overheads and the need to set aside reserves against losses. It would wrong to lead doctors to think that in these circumstances loans from the Corporation are likely to be cheap. The main advantage to them, at least at present, will lie in the availability of the money and in flexibility in the arrangements for repayment. At the same time, the new proposals already mentioned for direct payment of notional rents to doctors will benefit those who provide practice premises of a high standard with the aid of a loan from the Corporation or from any other sources.
Clause 6 empowers the Corporation to borrow by the issue of stock and temporarily by way of overdraft or otherwise. It also specifies the limits within which it may borrow, initially up to£10 million, a figure which can be increased up to£25 million by Order if the House so approves. These limits will exclude borrowings for the purposes of repaying moneys previously borrowed.
Clause 7 deals with the Treasury guarantee and Clause 8 requires the Corporation to keep proper accounts and records and provides for a copy of its annual report, with the accounts included, to be laid before each House of Parliament. Clause 9 deals with superannuation of officers and members of the Corporation. These nine Clauses complete the provisions of the Bill relating to the establishment and functions of the General Practice Finance Corporation.
I now come to Clause 10. The National Health Service Act, 1946, was amended in 1949 to prohibit family doctors being paid, except in special circumstances, wholly or mainly by a fixed salary which had no reference to the number of their patients. The amendment was introduced to fulfil an undertaking given by the Government of the day shortly before the Health Service came into being in 1948 to meet the fears of the medical profession that a full-time salaried State medical service might be imposed upon them. Those fears were as groundless then as they are now.
I have always felt that the plan which was enacted in 1949 was really too comprehensive. There were doctors who felt even then—and I think that there are many more who feel now—that the independent contractor status which was derived from the original National Health Insurance arrangements has certain inherent disadvantages, To the majority of doctors these disadvantages have become more apparent as the need has grown to conserve the doctor's time by relieving him of what I may call the business arrangements of the practice. Though not all doctors who recognise the problem would themselves want to change, for some of them payment by salary in which the onus for those arrangements rests on a public authority offers a more satisfactory alternative.
I was pleased that in their charter the profession expressed the view that since the National Health Service began there had been too little flexibility in the method of paying family doctors and that a proportion of doctors favoured payment by some form of salary. It would not have been possible to allow all doctors to choose to be paid by salary, because that form of payment would not normally be appropriate where the doctor is

providing his own premises, staff and equipment and where he works alongside doctors paid by fees.
The Second Report of the negotiations issued last October set out the Government's proposals to try and organise, in association with the profession's representatives, a number of groups of doctors to be paid by salary, perhaps under differing conditions, with the intention of applying that method of payment to as many as possible of those doctors who desire it.
That would go beyond the special circumstances which the 1949 Amendment exempts from the general prohibition of payment by salary, and Clause 10 is therefore necessary to allow for implementation of the proposal.
First of all, it provides explicitly for payment to be made by salary if arrangements have to be made under Section 43 of the 1946 Act; in other words, if, exceptionally, the normal arrangements for providing services are failing to secure an adequate service in an area and special provision has to be made. That possibility has always been open and would always have constituted "special circumstances" under the 1949 amendment, so that there is no change here. But secondly—and this is the innovation—the Bill allows for a doctor to be paid by salary, with his consent, if he is practising in circumstances prescribed in regulations.
I recognise that there are still misgivings in the minds of many general practitioners on the subject of payment by salary, and the Government would certainly not wish to force it on doctors against their will. In order to make that quite clear, the Clause not only provides for consultation with the profession before regulations are made but also for the consent of the individual doctor concerned to payment by salary.
Family doctors may have no fear that payment by salary will result in any impairment of their clinical freedom. They have only to consider the experience of their hospital colleagues to see how salaried employment and professional liberty can exist side by side. What it can do for general practitioners is to relieve them of the often tiresome and certainly time-consuming business of providing premises, staff and so on, thus


leaving them free to devote their time to the care of their patients.
These, then, are the proposals in the Bill. Of themselves, as I say, they cover only part of the ground, but it is an important part. These new provisions are needed if full benefit is to be obtained from the work that has been done over the past year to devise means whereby family doctors can, under the National Health Service, use their training and their skills for the greatest benefit to their patients and the deepest professional satisfaction to themselves.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I hope that the House will forgive me if, before coming to the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman has had to say, I express a view which I think is held not only on this side but also in all parts of the House. I refer to our great sense of loss in the death of Dame Edith Pitt. I heard what was said earlier today in her tribute, but I think that those hon. Members who are now in the House would agree that she has taken part in a number of our debates and always given expression to a well-informed realism. I have the strong feeling that she would probably have liked to take part in this debate, and she is certainly very much missed.
The right hon. Gentleman has taken us over the history of his prolonged discussions with the medical profession. He told us that he had had 40 meetings since our last debate. I calculate that that is an average of about a meeting a week and, as Ministers occasionally take holidays, some weeks must have been fuller than that. We would all like to congratulate him, his officials and the representatives of the British Medical Association for the immense amount of work that they have put in since last March.
It appears from what he has said and what is contained in the two Reports already published—and I presume that the Third Report will appear before very long—that the discussions have ranged very widely from the contract of service which is now being priced by the Review Body to the various proposals designed to enable the family doctor to practise better medicine.
As the right hon. Gentleman made clear, there is a close connection between the contract of service which was discussed and the other proposals, one of which, concerning the loans, is contained in the Bill.
Whilst we were all interested in what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the contract, all I would say about the matters which are now being decided by the Review Body is that everyone who is in any way concerned with the National Health Service is awaiting its findings with varying degrees of optimism, but with quite invariable interest and expectation.
In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the past about the position of the Review Body, I must take this opportunity to express the hope that when the Review Body reports to the Prime Minister the Government intend to reach their decision without seeking further intermediate advice, and I look forward to an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that that is the Government's intention.
One of the important matters covered in these protracted discussions was the profession's own suggestion of the Finance Corporation. Up till now there has been a limited system of interest-free loans for group practice. The limit of total finance available has been fairly low, and the right hon. Gentleman, speaking in the debate which took place here in July, 1964, described these loans as
quite inadequate for the kind of expansion of group practice that we would like to see.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) gave the House the information at the end of that debate that about 600 such loans had already been approved.
With the setting up of the Corporation, I presume that these interest-free loans will come to an end. Therefore, while the new arrangements are going to benefit a very much larger number of applicants, it would seem that there will be a small number of doctors who will no longer be able to get the help which was formerly provided on very favourable terms. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will comment on that, as I understand that he is going to wind up.
In that debate, the right hon. Gentleman used words which gave a very different impression of his intentions for the future. He said:
A system of loans must be replaced by one of grants. That is what a Labour Government would be prepared to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1964; Vol. 699, cols. 1016–7.]
That was no equivocal undertaking. It was no mere promise to consider, or to leave no stone unturned, or to explore every avenue. It was the bold plunge that a Labour Government will substitute grants for loans.
Apart from the limited machinery for grants which has been agreed between the right hon. Gentleman and the profession, the loans are still the mainstay of the system, and we are entitled to a fuller explanation than the right hon. Gentleman gave me in the last debate of why subsequently be changed his mind. In spite of this gap between promise and performance, to which some of my hon. Friends have drawn attention in other fields, the Opposition welcome any steps which make finance more readily and more certainly available to a much larger number of general practitioners.
There are various questions which may be suitably raised during the Committee stage, and I readily appreciate that the Corporation must be given freedom of manœuvre, but for the moment we should be greatly helped if the Minister could tell us one or two things. First, what will be the likely relationship between the interest required by the Corporation and that which is payable on loans though ordinary sources at the present time? Secondly, are rates of interest likely to move upwards or downwards during the period of the loan? Thirdly, will there be any ceiling on individual loans? Fourthly, over what period must they be repaid? Fifthly, we should be interested to know when the General Practice Finance Corporation will begin its work.
Clearly the attractiveness of this new method of providing necessary finance must depend, first, on loans being more certainly available than they would be from normal sources in times of credit restrictions, and, secondly, on loans being available on rather more favourable terms than other sources can offer at times when there is no restriction of credit.
The other matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—but I confess that I am still not clear about it—was that the first Report of his discussions with the B.M.A. made it clear that the Government
do not rule out the possibility that the Corporation should itself build and own premises, but wished to study further"—
one or two things—
before coming to a decision on this".
I heard what the Minister said, and it is clear that he has not put these powers in the Bill, but I wonder whether he is still prepared to consider giving this power to the Finance Corporation?
Some of these points seem to me to be of sufficient importance for the right hon. Gentleman to want to give us the Government's views without delay, but in general we believe that this Bill is a constructive contribution towards more efficient general practice, and as such, as the Minister made clear in his speech, it takes its place with other measures which are designed to reduce the load on general practitioners and leave them more free to do the work which they alone can do.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the measures which will reduce the load on general practitioners. In particular, the alteration of the arrangements for certification, which came into force this week, will most certainly reduce the work load on general practitioners, and to that extent it is to be welcomed, but, as the House knows, some of my hon. Friends have certain anxieties which they hope to express on another occasion.
There is an important sector in which progress could decisively reduce the burden on individual general practitioners. The right hon. Gentleman referred to group practice, and I should like to give him all my support, because I believe that this could make a substantial reduction in the burden, both physical and mental, if I can so express it, which general practitioners have to bear.
The First Report, to which I have already referred, expected
that purpose-built premises for improved practice, usually in groups, would have first claim
on the loans provided by the Finance Corporation. Therefore, it seems clear


from the sense of the Report that the stimulus which the Corporation will give general practice may well be considerable, but from reading the Bill, and from reading the Report, one gets the impression that the stimulus will in fact be incidental. The priorities may be fixed that way, but there is no particular requirement for loans to go to group practice alone. Again, the Minister might like to say a little more about this when he replies. The method of group practice seems to be one of the most fruitful ways of using medical skill, supported by much-needed ancillary help and working closely, both physically and professionally, with other specialists in the health team.
Finally, I should like to refer to the means of remunerating general practitioners, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which are now modified by Clause 10. When we last discussed these matters, last March, we all acknowledged the death of the pool system, and I do not think that many of us shed many tears on its behalf. We noticed at that time the claim of the G.P.s' charter that doctors should be given the choice of a capitation fee, payment by item of service, or some form of salary, and on that occasion I encouraged the right hon. Gentleman to experiment with these different methods of payment.
I am sorry to find that, according to what he said today, and according to what I have read in the Report, he has placed limitations on the experiments which he is prepared to make. It seems to me that we should have learned a great deal if doctors had been allowed to charge a fee for service, which subsequently could be wholly or partly reclaimed, but in fact the right hon. Gentleman has chosen one of the experiments which is a cautious move towards the payment of direct salaries. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right to be cautious, and all that he said proves that he is aware of the very cautious nature of this move.
I said during the last debate that
…this method of a straight salary raises…the question whether the personal nature of the service could continue if the present relationship between the patient and his or her docor ceased to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 1322.]

As the Minister made clear, the Bill proposes that such an experiment should be possible only with the consent of the practitioner, and in circumstances prescribed by himself or the Secretary of State for Scotland after consultation with the profession.
I wholly support now, as I did last March, the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken to make this experiment. It is an important departure from the present position, and we are naturally anxious that Parliament should be kept fully informed of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions in this matter, and I therefore ask that any Regulations which he makes under Clause 10(2) should be subject to approval by Parliament. I believe that this is a very modest request, and I hope that he will be able to give an assurance tonight that that is his intention.
Apart from the important questions of that kind, the right hon. Gentleman can be assured of our general support, and of our intention that the Bill should quickly become law so that the Corporation can begin its work as soon as possible.

8.18 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: As somebody who has one foot in both camps, I should like to tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome this latest manifestation of the Government's clear intention to promote the cause of family doctoring. I want to make it clear, and I say this with deep regret, that I have no mandate to speak on behalf of my colleagues. However, I assure the House that in conversations which I have had with many doctors, who are more noted for their fair-mindedness than for their commitments to Socialism, I have found their tributes to our Minister of Health much kinder today than they were a year ago, and I am confident that this progress on both sides will continue.
My right hon. Friend referred to the achievements which, individually taken over the last year, have perhaps not been terribly dramatic. But taken together, and set in the context of the continued advance of Britain, I think that they add up to a remarkable determination to ensure the rescue, the maintenance, and the prosperity of general practice in Britain today. We have to consider the Bill not


only in the context of what has been done for general practitioners alone, but in the context of the Land Commission Bill. That Measure, surely, can contribute as much to the urgent problems of land hunger, as experienced by general practitioners, as can this Bill.
The Minister also implied a recognition of the fact that the Bill has come before the House after he and the profession have broadly agreed its terms. I read it as an acknowledgement by the profession that its historic rôle—that of a group of individual entrepreneurs—is over. At last the profession acknowledges that although it must do it by this back-door, two-step fashion, it cannot survive without the help of the Government or local authorities. The imputations of this should not be lost upon the House.
I speak at the moment as a doctor, and not as a politician. I am sorry to have to change my hat so constantly. The profession is faced with the same difficulties as those which confront the small shopkeeper. The same difficulty arises when the High Street suddenly acquires an enormous land value, which can be met only by the supermarkets. The problem facing both doctors and the Minister is to assist the family doctor out of the era of small shopkeeping into the era of supermarket medicine. I hope that that will not be wrongly interpreted. I am merely emphasising the need for much bigger types of organisation than exist under our present system of family doctors.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) suggested that the salary question should be placed before the House on every occasion. I resist that suggestion, in the hope, however optimistic it may be, that as time passes and pressures grow the number of occasions on which the Minister will want to make orders for the determination of salary payments will increase, so that the time taken in considering these matters, however formally we do it in the House, will grow and grow. Once we have established and accepted this principle it should not be a matter that has to come before the House on every occasion.
The affairs of the Corporation, however, are an entirely different matter. We are setting up a body whose representa-

tion in Parliament will presumably be through the Ministry of Health, and which is required under the terms of the Bill to submit its accounts annually through the Minister and the Secretary of State. This body will dispose of about£10 million a year, and it is quite proper that an annual report of this sort should come to the House. I trust that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will hold himself responsible for answering any points that arise in connection with this matter.
This leads to a very important point. The Minister has left it less than clear precisely what is to be the policy-making rôle of the Corporation. He has referred to the need for continued responsibility and for consultation with local health authorities, but I am troubled—to put it no higher—to think that a body based predominantly on financial considerations, which is small for the tasks which it may be asked to undertake and which disposes of no less than£10 million a year and possibly£25 million a year, will consist of only six members.
I should like to know what sort of infrastructure it will command which will allow it to take into consideration, when determining whether a loan or grant should be made, what advice it will have, and what opportunity it will have to consult local health authorities. Under Section 31 of the 1946 Act local health authorities were given the responsibility of building premises known as health centres to provide for both general practice and general dental practice. It seems to me that it might have been convenient, as a precaution, to include in the Bill the possibility of meeting the same requirement in respect of the dentists instead of leaving them to be dealt with possibly by a future Bill, after future negotiations.
Is it too late to insert in the Bill a reference to the needs of the general dental practice? The dentist is subject to the same squeezes and the same difficulties as those which confront the doctor.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the same point might be made in respect of the ophthalmic practitioners, although not on the same scale?

Dr. Kerr: I accept that point. It is worth looking at. This principle could


also be extended to the small chemist. The danger is that the Corporation could turn out to be an instrument for perpetuating the small shopkeeper principle in the Health Service instead of doing away with it. I am not sure what built-in protection we have against that principle. It is subject to Ministerial direction and the acceptance of certain schemes. I hope that, in its traditional fashion, the House will declare itself in favour of the Minister's assisting the profession to move away from this anachronism. In other words, I hope that the work of the General Practice Finance Corporation will be devoted to assisting better standards of organisation as well as making available the land and buildings which are in demand.
Another assurance which I am very anxious to have from my right hon. Friend concerns the rôle of private practice in medicine. The terms of the Bill refer to assistance being given for the acquisition, improvement or extension of premises, which are, in whole or in part, being used for general medical services. Nothing in the Bill would preclude a loan being made available to a doctor 90 per cent. of whose work is private practice and only 10 per cent. or less is concerned with the National Health Service. I am anxious to avoid that situation, and I shall be glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that when the Minister inspects a scheme he will pay heed to this factor.
The relationship between the local health authorities and the General Practice Finance Corporation I have already mentioned, and I should like to enlarge on it. Under the health and welfare document published in 1963 by the previous Government, there was provision for only about 65 health centres by 1974. It is extremely good news to hear from my right hon. Friend of the very rapid advance in planning these important institutions since the present Government have had responsibility. However, is there now to be competition between local health authorities on a rate-financed basis—the only authorities charged with this responsibility?
If they are to have the easy option of saying to general practitioners, who are very difficult to inveigle into health centres anyway, "Look, boys: we can-

not put this on the rates; if you will trot along to the Ministry of Health, you will get a loan from the General Practice Finance Corporation. Everybody will be happy; you will be your own masters and subject to no nasty town hall bureaucracy", this would be a situation about which I have some justification in expressing anxiety.
I hope that the Minister will look very closely at how local health authorities —perhaps even hospitals, although I am not in favour of G.P.s being hospital subordinates—can be given the advantage of comprehensive planning of health facilities for local areas, so that the planning is not competitive, but comprehensive and co-operative. In so far as finance is referred to in the Bill, according to my simple arithmetic,£10 million would pay for roughly 100 centres and£25 million, pari passu, is equivalent to about 250 health centres.
I am not sure what sort of sums we could hope for. Local authorities which are building health centres are content to look to their new estates to establish branch services or similar inferior types of organisational centres for general practitioners. One can compare this with the present system of group practice loans. I should like to endorse what the right hon. Member for Bridlington said about the unhappy lack of encouragement in the Bill for the promotion of group practice. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way corresponds, for instance, to the terms of the Dankwerts Award in 1951, which took conscious, deliberate and very successful steps towards the promotion of group practice.
We seem to have come to a standstill. I would direct the House's attention to the figures in the Minister of Health's Report for the last two years on the structure of general practice in this country. We seem to have advanced very little. If we accept as the basis of group practice a partnership of not fewer than four doctors, we find that, of those practices containing four or more doctors, the total number is about static for 1963–64. If we are really committed to the ideal of group practice—I am not sure that I am: it is difficult to argue this in a short time—it is plain that the principle needs a little more of a push than it will get from the Bill.
Turning now to the salary remuneration principle for general practitioners, I can only say—as did someone who, both personally and as a past Secretary of the Socialist Medical Association, has campaigned for this one acknowledgment of the right way to establish a salaried service—that I welcome it wholeheartedly. It is always curious to me that general practitioners should be so resistant to the principle of salary, when they would not think of paying their own assistants in any other way. This curious paradox —perhaps not the most curious among doctors—is worth noting.
I am not sure that I agree with the repeated assertion which we have heard tonight from the right hon. Member for Bridlington that the pool system is dead. I suppose that the old method of distributing the pool is dead, but until I have seen the terms of the Review Body's recommendations, I do not see the Government being saddled with an open-ended commitment, which seems the only alternative to establishing a general, basic pool for the general practitioner service and its subsequent division, albeit on an entirely new basis.
On this point, I await not so much my right hon. Friend's advice as the Review Body's recommendations. Of course, if he wishes to say something on the subject—though I do not think that he will want to commit himself—I shall listen with interest.
The new salary principle, which I hope that the House will pass enthusiastically tonight, has one shortcoming. It clears the deck for a whole-time salaried service for general practitioners, but it does not actively promote it. My right hon. Friend has spoken feelingly of the inhibitions of family doctors towards a salaried service. I wonder how much progress we shall make towards a salaried service when the Minister allows the principle—as I think he must—of consultation, and when, every time that he wants to introduce a salaried service in a particular locality, he has to consult the doctors.
It is not clear from the Bill whether he will consult the local practitioners through the local medical committees or the national bodies, the British Medical Association, the Medical Practitioners' Union and so on. I repeat, going back to the Corporation for a moment, that I am not sure that six men and a couple of

chairmen are enough to consider the appropriate problems which arise in a locality. In the same way, I am not sure that the national bodies are appropriate bodies to advise or consult the Minister on local problems in establishing a salaried service.
Other problems are bound to arise, notably the determination of salary levels. As things stand, the Review Body would probably be the appropriate body to determine salary levels, but I wonder whether, with the establishment of a salaried service in general practice, the profession should not now be encouraged to take a more constructive look at the Whitley Council machinery which it has abandoned so successfully for so long.
In general, I welcome the Bill as part of the developing plan of the Government for general practice. Although I have, I fear, perhaps overweighted my reservations and anxieties, I wish to make it clear that this is obviously so splendid a part of a new look for Britain's family doctor services that I can only offer my warmest welcome to it and my congratulations to my right hon. Friend.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: The object of the Bill is to improve the family doctor services. The Minister gave a clear exposition of the provisions of the Measure and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) paid tribute to the work of the Minister during the past year. Forty meetings with representatives of the profession is certainly a great achievement, and I; too, pay tribute to the Minister.
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), who speaks with such authority as a member of the profession. The Liberal Party's attitude in welcoming the Bill depends not so much on the provisions of the Measure as on the use the Minister intends to make of them. The Bill will provide the means whereby capital can be invested in general practice and, as such, it is to be welcomed.
It would appear that the Clauses relating to salary could make it possible to provide inducements to doctors to go to areas which are at present under-doctored. Nobody is more aware of


the problems facing practitioners in the National Health Service than the Minister. The overall shortage of doctors is very serious indeed, and it would seem that unless active measures are taken in the immediate future the situation will deteriorate.
I recently saw statistics—they were published by the Overseas Migration Board—based on the holders of United Kingdom passports. They showed that 900 British doctors emigrated or went to work overseas in 1964. For those responsible for the administration of the Health Service this is indeed a serious matter. This drain on resources must be stopped, particularly when the needs at home are so desperate.
It would also seem that when there is a general shortage of doctors in an area those who remain in the area find the work they must do so much increased that they, too, are inclined to leave for a part of the country where better conditions are obtainable. In certain areas, according to the statistics, the number of patients far exceeds the requirements of the profession as defined by the profession and the Ministry. Meanwhile, other areas have more than adequate provision. Will the provisions of this Bill help to stop this imbalance in the provision of general practitioner services, or help to bring back some of those doctors who have gone overseas? We hope that this will be the result.
Whilst money is very important, it is clear that working conditions matter most. I am led to believe that many of the doctors who go abroad take substantial cuts in salaries in order to have better working conditions.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states:
Clause 2 enables the Corporation to make loans to National Health Service doctors for the provision of premises required by them for the purpose of providing family doctor services and for the repayment of existing loans on such premises.
This is very good in itself, but whilst it may be helpful in some cases, I believe that in other cases, if the Minister's object is to find more doctors for the under-doctored areas, he will be much more likely to achieve this by providing health centres and improving premises himself rather

than waiting for doctors to make use of a loan service. I know of my own knowledge and from my acquaintance with doctors that many of them are not ready to take on extra commitments at the present time.
Since the object of the Bill is to improve the family doctor service throughout the country, I should like to refer to a problem which affects my constituency, the Highlands of Scotland generally, and perhaps other areas as well, and which, I think, the Bill's provisions could help to solve. When a doctor has to go off work due to illness or to any other reason, it is often very difficult for him to find a locum. This is particularly true of some of the remote areas. While it is then the function of the regional hospital boards to find a locum, it is difficult at times even for the boards to find someone who will go to some of these areas to relieve general practitioners.
This is no reflection on the boards, because the doctors are just not there. If, however, the boards were able to offer a house in a central position, I am convinced that a doctor could be found to act as a locum. In this case, a doctor who was approaching retiring age, or who had retired, would do very well, indeed, and I am sure that he would enjoy the work very well, as it would not be too arduous. As this is a matter for the Scottish Office—

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. I am sure that he will know of the existence of the Leslie Committee, which is at present looking into the general problems of medical services for the Highlands and Islands. It is examining this kind of question, recognising, as does the hon. Gentleman, the particular problems of attracting doctors to his constituency and elsewhere.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am glad to know that this point is being looked at. In the Highlands it is much easier to find a doctor who will go on a permanent basis rather than as a locum. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her information.
For two or three years the Liberal Party has been pressing for immediate measures to help to get the under-doctored areas served, and because we feel that these provisions will help to achieve


this end we give the Measure a cordial welcome.

8.45 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I welcome this family doctor's Bill as a milestone in the Measures which successive Labour Governments have taken to establish a family doctor service. We read daily of the crisis in general practice, a crisis among doctors. I hope that tomorrow we shall read in equally large letters about the steps this Government have taken to remedy the situation, I hope that people who have daily intimate contact with their general practitioners will appreciate that the Minister and the Government are doing something about the family doctor's welfare and not allowing this crisis to continue and to become worse.
I welcome not only the record of this Minister and this Government but the proposals which my right hon. Friend put forward for the future and the plans that we shall carry out as we proceed with the welfare of general practitioners. As we all know, and is said so often, the general practitioner is the backbone of the National Health Service. This Bill tackles two vitally important problems in his life. First, it improves his working conditions. By means of loans, the first steps towards more group practice are made. A doctor who has inadequate facilities, whose premises are cramped and small, will not consider taking on extra partners. It is only if he has the finance to expand, to modernise or to create new premises that he will think of increasing the number in the partnership from two to three, four or five.
Once we get the idea into his head of the possibility of group practice, we can go on to the possibility of health, sentres. This is the first step towards the citation of health centres which we want to see. Doctors are conservative animals and we have to start gradually so that they hardly notice it. We shall go on from these loans for private practice to health centres.
The second way in which the Bill is highly significant is that it is the first step towards a full-time salaried service of family doctors, for which members of the Socialist Medical Association have been campaigning for years. They look upon a full-time salaried service as an answer to the problems of the general

practitioner, but here again the average doctor does not feel so strongly. Only a minority are fully convinced that a full-time salaried service is the best method of remuneration. This Bill provides the first step to a salaried service. It is a highly significant Bill in these two ways, towards health centres and a salaried service, both of which are advocated by Labour Party doctors, I admit that they are few, but I think these ideas are now becoming gradually accepted by more and more family doctors, particularly the younger ones.
The loans will provide for expanding, modernising and acquiring new premises. If we can get group practices that will alter the whole mode of life of doctors. Doctors are now realising that they have a right to regular hours, adequate holidays and even to a national locum service and an appointments system. They cannot have that unless they work in groups or health centres. These loans will go towards that.
Last year I was in Uganda, which is supposed to be a developing country. Even there they have appreciated that if they are to set up any form of health service they must have health centres and not isolated doctors in different parts of the bush. A group of M.P.s attended the opening of a health centre right in the middle of Uganda, miles from the nearest town. It was opened with great sincerity by the Minister of Health for Uganda, because it was considered significant. I hope that we shall not find in ten years' time that Uganda has 100 health centres whilst we are still staggering along with the few that we have.
I am glad to see that the Bill still leaves the family doctor with his much prized freedom. He hates to think that he will in any way be dominated or ordered about by local authorities or by the State. The objection of doctors to the National Health Service in the beginning was that they feared that there would be snoopers from Whitehall entering the surgery every few minutes to see what they were up to. This, as they have found, did not happen. To their surprise, they are left very much on their own.
I am glad to see that no strings will be attached to these loans. Doctors will be able to decide what improvements they want, what equipment they need if loans


are given for that, and what facilities they require. They can decide how the money will be spent. Similarly, consultants in hospital who are State consultants are given tremendous freedom of action.
This is a great incentive to the older doctor because, whereas the young doctor is used to modern facilities when he trains as a student and when he does his house jobs in hospitals, the older doctor often tends to get into a rut and will put up with premises he has had for 20 years. I expect older doctors to take advantage of these loans.
This is a vitally important Bill, in that it tackles the doctor shortage. It tackles it at its very roots. When young doctors come out of hospital, they have no money. They are badly paid as housemen. They usually have a family to keep. They look round for a job in a general practice. As we have seen, group practices are few and far between because there are not the modern premises and facilities that young doctors want. They will not go into old premises without facilities. The result is that nearly one-quarter, we estimate, go abroad for better working conditions.
The Bill gives doctors the opportunity to obtain capital, either to set up their own group practices or, if they can find premises, to improve and modernise them. I hope that it will also encourage more people to clamour to take up medicine. Admittedly there are not facilities to train them, but the more that clamour to become doctors perhaps the more medical schools my right hon. Friend will see fit to create in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science and Education. I should like to see at least four new medical schools.
I welcome the fact that these loans will be repayable over the whole of a doctor's career and that a doctor will not be expected to pay them back during a set time. This will be a great incentive for the loans to be used. I should like to see preference of loans given to the industrial North and to under-doctored areas. Quite apart from the fact that I want the medical schools to be in the industrial North, the loans should primarily go to places like my own constituency—Halifax—which is an industrial town with a gradu-

ally declining number of family doctors. Each year the number dwindles. This is in addition to the fact that we have an exceptionally large number of old people in Halifax and in the West Riding in general.
It is the under-doctored areas which face the real crisis today. To take an example of another under-doctored area, some figures have been produced of the crisis in the Rhondda. There are 100,000 people in the Rhondda, and to serve them they have 38 family doctors. Of those 38 doctors, 37 are principals of whom one is 92 years old, another is 77, and 9 are between 60 and 70. This is no reflection on- hon. Members who may be of these ages, but it is rather an advanced age to be in active general practice among 100,000 people. The situation in the Rhondda is an illustration of the fact that doctors in these areas are being grossly overworked, and it is here that we must encourage young people to take up practice. I want these loans to be considered by the general public not as an act of charity but as a sound economic investment in the interests of the community.
The second significant point of the Bill is that it represents the first step towards a salaried service. It will be many years before the average family doctor accepts this as desirable, but a large number of the younger ones are coming to support the idea. Young doctors will no longer emigrate if they believe that their method remuneration can be more favourable.
I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend's proposal for considering, when he thinks further on the question of a salary service, the conditions of employment. It is vital that he should relate the salary to the work load, to the responsibility of the doctor and to the morbidity in his area. Doctors feel now that they have a right to reasonable conditions of work as well as to a reasonable method of remuneration. In this way, too, we shall be able to tackle the shortage of doctors because married women will be able to take up part-time posts where they are urgently needed, on a salaried basis. If we are to create an occupational health service in the years to come, we shall certainly need doctors working part-time in a salaried service. In all the professions, nursing, teaching


and medicine, people must expect that far more part-time posts will require to be filled, particularly among married women.
I should like the salary to vary according to the areas in which doctors serve. At present, medical officers of health are salaried, and, in an over-populated area, with more work to do, a medical officer of health is, naturally, paid more than his counterpart in a less populated area where the work is not so onerous. The same should apply to doctors who are paid by salary, and this, again, would help to attract them to the under-doctored areas.
I welcome the Bill as a Measure which will bring in eventually, in the distant future, group practices, leading to health centres, and a salaried service for family doctors. The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). saying that we were giving not grants but only loans, made the comment that our promises were not as good as our performance. I do not want to bring a note of acrimony into this pleasant debate—

Mr. Wood: I said that the Government's promises were better than their performance.

Dr. Summerskill: I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had no performance at all over the past 13 years. At least, we have made an effort to bring in a piece of positive legislation to help the family doctor. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that we shall go on to introduce more legislation, quietly and calmly, bringing in eventually the sort of National Health Service to which the first Labour Government aspired but which has been slightly delayed over the past few years.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: This is the first time in my experience in this House that I have had the pleasure of following an hon. Member from my own side of the House. I do not know whether this is indicative of the general agreement on the excellence of the Bill, which means that hon. Members opposite are content for us to carry it through, or of the strength of the Government at this time.
I was interested in the comments of my hon. and qualified Friend the Member

for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). I may point out that I am the first layman to speak from the back benches on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) also speaks as a doctor. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax forcefully made the point, which I accept, that since the National Health Service began we have been trying to get a more rational, logical and reasonable organisation into the system of family doctoring.
At the same time, we have always been committed to persuasion rather than compulsion in achieving the things we hope to see emerging over the years, such as health centres and a full salaried service. The Bill is a measure of the way in which we can reach the kind of objectives we want through what the Fabians called the inevitability of gradualness.
I welcome the fact that the voice raised among hon. Members opposite comes from Scotland and the Liberal benches in the person of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) because, in so many health debates, the Liberal voice has been the prerogative of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
I also welcome the comments made about under-doctoring by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. As she pointed out, this is not just a question of total numbers. It has a great deal to do with distribution. In many industrial areas of the kind served by my hon. Friend, the average number of patients per doctor is 2,900 to 3,000, while in Bournemouth, for example, the average is under 600. The question is not only about numbers of G.P.s but how we are to get a rational distribution to make sure we get the doctors in the right places. This Bill will help to that end.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty also raised the question of the tremendous problems arising from the shortage of doctors. It is trite to talk about the 1957 Willink Report, which reduced student intake. But the problem faced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is that we cannot produce more doctors in under seven years. Thus, the Bill is one of a number of many things which must be done. It will be some years before we can get out of these difficulties.
I ask the House not to accept too readily the figure of 900 doctors per year emigrating. I went into the figures quoted by Dr. Seale and the arguments when they were first made. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), when he was Minister of Health, did some extremely useful mathematics at that time which demolished a number of figures that were being quoted. I accept that there is a problem and that more doctors leave the country than we should like, but we should not exaggerate the extent of the problem.
I share the welcome given in general to the Bill. We must recognise that, a year ago, we faced a bad atmosphere in the medical profession. There was the threat of withdrawal. To the tributes already paid to him, I would add my own to my right hon. Friend. In spite of the great difficulties that he faced, he has produced a new atmosphere between the Government and the doctors. This Bill, and the general support of it, is indicative of the success of the 40 meetings mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). My right hon. Friend has made a slow, patient and very tolerant approach and that has led to the possibility of geting as far as the present proposals and beyond.
The referendum among the doctors which gave the background to the Bill showed that 17,602 were prepared to accept the new arangements subject to pricing and that only 2,660 were against. Less than 12 months ago, these figures were reversed, when 17,000 wanted to opt out of the National Health Service. It will be a comfort to my right hon. Friend to recall, however, that referenda among doctors do not necessarily reflect their practice. In 1948, in a referendum, 24,000 said that they would not join the National Health Service but, only a few months later, when it began, 21,000 joined.
The main provision of the Bill is twofold. I believe that this is part of a larger and grand design that has been going on ever since October, 1964, to move away from a curative to a preventive National Health Service. To do that we have to seek fresh methods of organisation. By doing what I hope will be fundamental and seeking to help the general practitioner in the vital part he will have to play if we are to move

towards preventive medicine and to give him the kind of conditions and tools and surroundings which will enable him to do the job, the Bill will be an important step in that direction.
The Bill provides an opportunity to do something about premises. There have already been two attempts to give doctors the right kind of premises from which to practise. Section 21 of the Health Act was obviously the right answer if only doctors would have accepted it, for there would then have been established local authority health centres custom built for the job. That did not materialise for a number of reasons not least because of the doctors' suspicions.
Group practice loans were another effort to persuade doctors to use cooperative rather than individualistic methods. That has had some little success, although the accent must be on "little". In 1963, the last year for which I have figures, only 95 loans amounting to a total of£608,000 were taken up in this interest-free arrangement. I hope that the group practice loans will continue to operate on the establishment of the Finance Corporation. The money involved was set aside from the doctor's own money—it was part of the global pool—and I hope that not only will the loans continue, but that other incentives will be offered towards providing a more rational approach to domiciliary medicine.
The Group Practice Finance Corporation only facilitates the money arrangements and it would be interesting to know whether my right hon. Friend will try to get interest rates lower than would be the case on the openmarket. As I understand the Bill, if he did, that would mean that in the immediate future the Corporation could no longer be self-supporting and financially viable. I hope that the provision calling for financial stability over a period of time will mean that it is possible for the Corporation to be heavily in deficit over an interim period, provided that it can catch up with its deficits in the long run.
I hope that the Bill will provide the power to help doctors not only with finance, but to have the right kind of premises. In the Ministry there is a very fine hospital building unit, as there is in the Ministry of Education for the schools,


in order to provide rationalised building by getting standard patterns and know-how for the required functional building. For general practice there has recently been established a voluntary centre set up with the aid of the College of General Practitioners and with some help from the B.M.A. and the M.P.U. But it is running very much on a shoe-string and a great deal more architectural advice and service is needed.
For instance, if there is to be an appointment system, as one would hope in new premises, the best architectural advice is required so that the receptionists and health visitors and other ancillary services can be sited where they will be best suited to the general practitioner. I hope that the Finance Corporation will have a department of promotion, or an evangelical approach to improved methods, able to give doctors the knowledge needed for co-operative medicine, a subject on which at the moment they have to get advice from many different sources.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will say what happens in connection with the Clause allowing for the alteration of existing premises, and for the rationalisation of existing groups of doctors. Will there be some compensation for redundant premises? What happens to the doctor or group of doctors operating from a house, for which they have had to pay excessively because it is a doctor's house on the corner? If it was bought before the Act came into effect, or even if it was bought afterwards, there could be a hidden goodwill in the price. If some of these old premises are to be made redundant, it may be difficult to persuade doctors to come into groups to practise, or to operate under this scheme if they find that they have a very heavy financial loss as a result of having to convert their houses, which are their business premises and homes, into purely residential accommodation.
I was interested in the Minister's comments on Clause 3 on the subject of equipment. I should like to know what kind of powers the Corporation will have in order to prevent overlapping of the provision of equipment as a result of the general practitioners having loans and the National Health Service providing facilities for G.P.s through its other sec-

tors. The Minister gave the example of the need for sterile syringes. At the moment a number of hospitals are making available such syringes to G.P.s. Will there be some form of overlapping here so that we find ourselves paying for a sterile syringe service in the local hospital which can be used by the G.P.sthe last such scheme I looked at was going to cost about£20,000—while the G.P.s are running another duplicate service?
In the same way when there is a possibility of new diagnostic aids for the doctors, will they be encouraged to do their own X-rays or will arrangements be made through the local hospital, and access provided, thus avoiding having expensive equipment as part of the loan? The point of co-ordination will have to be thoroughly looked at during the Committee stage. There are many decisions that the Corporation will have to make concerning the local health authority and the local hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Free-son) raised the question on Monday of the power of the local health authority to initiate health centres and to pay G.P.s to provide services from such centres. This means that one would have different responsibilities between the local executive council and the health council. In many cases it would be advisable, where a local authority is going ahead with a wide scale of local health coverage, for the local health authority to have power to move into this area and help with the payment of doctors' salaries, through arrangements with the local health committee and local executive committee.
The more we reach the stage where we can achieve a rationalisation in family doctoring, the more the divorce between the three wings of the service becomes apparent. I hope that the decision to give loans will be seen against the other decisions mentioned by the Minister, including the arrangements for rent and rates to be reimbursed to doctors under new expenses arrangements. This opens a new sphere. If the public and the State are to pay the total amount of rent and rates then we have a right to know that we are getting value for money. It could be that the Corporation could ensure that, because it will enable the right kind of premises. If all that we do is given carte blanche, so that whatever


rents and rates are paid they will be reimbursed, we shall inherit, as we have in many undertakings, a whole host of decrepit property, which is run down, and for which we have to pay very high prices, and which would be far more useful if it could be turned to some other purpose. We need the custom-built centres.
I hope that the financial considerations will not prove to be too onerous. In my view,£10 million a year is inadequate over the long term. I presume that we will see how this goes in the first period. I am delighted that nobody has sought to find money from that place which has been, for the last 12 months, the sole repository of money as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned. I refer to the£38 million which has been paid in abolishing the prescription charges. In the discussions which have gone on about reorganising the Health Service it is surprising how often that money for prescription charges has been spent to give the doctors money, to build hospitals, to pay nurses and to satisfy so many other needs. Even the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has built training colleges with it. It has been argued that if we taxed the sick, with this 2s. we should be able to pay for everything that the nation wants—roads, railways, the lot.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that, from wherever else he gets the finance for the Bill, we do not return to the time when a person with a coronary thrombosis is taxed regularly for 100 pills a week. I hope that we shall never return to the stage when the more sick people are the more they are taxed. The Bill should lead away from the past attempt to make health some kind of commodity which one buys and sells in the market place and restore it to the kind of social service which was undoubtedly behind the inception of the Act.
I welcome Clause 10. I have pressed for this in the House during the last six years and have continued to press that doctors should have this option in deciding their remuneration. I can never understand the difference about a cheque which is received once a month computed in one way and a cheque which is regarded as a salary. If they get a cheque once a month, however it is com-

puted, they are being paid a salary by the community. It is amazing how many general practitioners would be only too pleased to be consultants with an A merit award, but the consultant gets a salary. Nobody says that for that reason he has less status than a general practitioner.
The capitation basis gives a very rough and ready measurement of a doctor's service to the community. May I give the House a very short example? A doctor working in Swansea with 1,000 patients will do as many items of service as a doctor working in Surrey with 3,000 patients. They would do precisely the same amount of work if one averaged out the items of service between Swansea and Surrey. But the doctor in Surrey will get three times the amount of remuneration of the doctor in Swansea. Although this is only a first step towards a salaried service, if we are to achieve greater justice between doctor and doctor it is a step in the right direction.
The Bill will receive a good deal of support not only from my hon. Friends who are doctors but from a number of general practitioners in the country. Unless they support the other measures which the Minister is trying to get through on behalf of the family doctor service, however, it will be difficult for the family doctors as we know them to survive. Domiciliary medicine can be organised in other ways. It is possible to have polyclinics. It is possible to find other ways to deal with people when they are sick in their homes. But the family doctor service is the best way to do it if only it can be organised in a proper and rational manner.
As I said at the outset, I believe that this valuable Bill is the first step to a large number of very important Measures which we shall need in the next few years to get away from merely curing illness to preventing it from starting. The only way in which that can be done is to give the family doctor a smaller number of patients so that he can give them adequate time before they are ill.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: This has been an extremely quiet debate, as many hon. Members have remarked, and it is certainly not my intention to disturb the quietness, even if I could. It is,


however, proper for one who has the honour of being the Member for Ebbw Vale to note that there is a slight ironic nip in the air.
First, if we consider the Minister himself, it is a very different situation, as has already been noticed, from that which was described in the newspapers some months ago. We do not yet know how the newspapers will report this debate tomorrow, but it would be an instructive exercise, both for the doctors, for the newspapers and for the country at large, if alongside reporting the quietness of this debate they were to print several of the headlines that were published at that time. It would be very helpful for the doctors, among others, because they would be able to judge whether the charges made against my right hon. Friend were correct. He was in some quarters portrayed as an enemy of the medical profession, as one who was out to deal with them in the most monstrous fashion. But there is not one doctor or representative of the doctors who says that today, certainly none in this House, and the doctors have always had a few representatives here. Therefore, on those grounds, it is proper that we should underline this contrast between the atmosphere that was stirred up a few months ago and the reality of today.
That is not the only contrast which we should note. The Minister referred in his speech to the far-sightedness of some of those who were engaged in the controversies when the National Health Service was introduced. With his usual superlative tact he did not make any special awards as to who among them were far-sighted. My right hon. Friend is an extremely skilled negotiator. Indeed, his negotiating skill has a certain therapeutic quality about it, if that is the right word. He manages to reduce neuroses that seem to grow in the minds of those with whom he has to deal.
Not only were the doctors or their organisations a year ago working themselves into an extraordinary state, for which I do not know the medical name, but they did the same thing 20 years ago. It was exactly 20 years ago, in February, 1946, that the late Aneurin Bevan presented his first outline of a National Health Service to the doctors' organisations. Several other arguments were used, but it is worth recalling that

the major argument over the next two years prior to the introduction of the Service concerned exactly the matter which is dealt with in Clause 10 of the Bill.
When Aneurin Bevan made his proposals to the doctors, it was immediately said by their representatives that one of the reasons why they opposed the Bill and why they proposed not to work it was that it was a conspiracy to enforce a complete salaried system upon the doctors. That was their interpretation of the original Bill. Anybody can confirm what I say by reading the first reactions of the British Medical Association and some of the other doctors' organisations, who at that time denounced the whole of the Bill which eventually became law precisely on the ground to which we are now referring.
What happened over those years of controversy was that Aneurin Bevan made it clear that it was never his intention to introduce the State salaried system that the doctors were saying he intended to introduce, but that what he wanted and intended to do was to give the doctors the greatest possible flexibility of choice. "Flexibility" is the word that was used by the Minister today. It is now perfectly accepted by the doctors. In 1946, however, "flexibility" was regarded by the doctors as a word that was almost unmentionable. The doctors then made the most scandalous charges against him because of the flexible apparatus that he was proposing to introduce for the payment of doctors, and what the doctors have secured under their charter is what Aneurin Bevan originally offered them and which they rejected, if I may say so, with a certain degree of discourtesy.
It is useful for us to remember these things. I do not know whether the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) was here on that occasion. If he had been, he would have voted three times against the proposition which is now passing through the House perfectly acceptably.
The Amendment Act of 1949 was the last concession made to the doctors because they said that they would not agree to serve under the National Health Service if it were not provided by law that the benefits for the doctors which had been included in the Bill were withdrawn. Aneurin Bevan was perfectly prepared


to agree to that. It was said that it was a great concession that he had made, but, as he had been prepared to agree with what the doctors wanted on that head all along, it was not a concession. However, he made it look like a concession, and it may be that that is why the doctors came in.
The doctors should look back to that when they next engage in negotiations and remember that it is wiser to listen to the Minister of Health of a Labour Government or to the Ministry of Health itself, which was subject to many attacks from the medical profession. Damaging things were said about the Ministry. Among other things, it was said that it wished to injure the medical profession. What is being sought by the medical profession today as a concession is seomething that the Ministry was in favour of 20 years ago, along with the Minister.
I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about health centres, and I am glad to see the progress which has been made, as Aneurin Bevan would be. Health centres were a principal part of the Act, a special section being provided for them.
Many of the things which are now regarded as original were envisaged by him in that original Act. It was only the physical circumstances at the time which in his view prevented the much speedier progress towards health centres 20 years ago which might have solved many of the further problems which the doctors have been debating during the past three years. It may be that the doctors should pay some respect to the politicians on that score—not all politicians, but some of them.
Another major purpose of the National Health Service Act was to ensure a better distribution of doctors, which was something that had never been attempted in previous years. No plan had been devised over the previous 30 or 40 years for trying to influence where doctors should serve.
I am not saying that the Act has achieved everything that we should desire in that respect, because it has not. The figures given by one of my hon. Friends about the Rhondda are very significant, and they apply in my own constituency and in other parts of the

country which have severe difficulties on that account. These were foreseen by the Act which the Labour Government introduced in 1946. It was a very far-seeing Act.
Nothing that we are discussing today was not foreseen in the Act which was introduced then. We are catching up with some of the original proposals which were put to the medical profession in 1946. Some of the things that they regarded with horror then they now acclaim as being acceptable contributions to their welfare. These are important facts for us to remember.
It is perfectly true that there is one proposition that Aneurin Bevan put to the doctors which has not been carried further. After they had had all these controversies, when they had been settled and the doctors came into the Service, he was asked what was his future longterm prospect for the doctors. His reply was that he wanted to see a high incidence of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have not moved fast enough yet, but I believe that we are taking steps in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) talked of the preventive side of the Act and of it being a further step. One of the objectives of the Act was to substitute preventive medicine for curative medicine as much as it could be done, and even now it has not gone as far as we would like.
Another thing which he foresaw was that the structure which was originally devised, partly for the purpose of encouraging the confidence of doctors, was not to be a permanent one. Indeed, he made proposals very soon afterwards for overhauling the structure to make it more democratic. This, too, was foreseen, and I hope that this is one of the matters with which the Minister will proceed after his great success in getting this Measure through so successfully and with such universal approval. I hope that he will proceed to examine the structure so that we can make it much more democratic.
I think that when the doctors look back on this history they should recognise that they owe a debt to the National Health Service. We have had many tributes paid to the Minister, and quite rightly. I think that he deserves them


all for the way in which he has assisted doctors. They have deserved assistance in the many hardships with which they have had to deal, but they owe a debt to the National Health Service.
Doctors must play fair with the Service. Not all are doing so, and some who ate not are bringing the whole Service into disrepute. It is very difficult to put one's finger on the practices which are bringing the Service into disrepute, but we all know about them. We know that some doctors give preference to people who can pay. This must be stamped out, and the whole medical profession, for its own good name, should be eager to stamp it out. It is very difficult to supply the Minister with evidence of it, but we know that it occurs. Fair-minded doctors who look at the history of the past twenty years and look at how successive Governments, in particular the Labour Government of 1945 and the present Government, have dealt with them, must realise that the medical professional has no grievance against the Labour Party. I think they must acknowledge that on both occasions the Government and the Department have done their best to understand the problems of doctors and to provide them with the equipment and apparatus for discharging their professional skills. Every doctor in the country should recognise what he owes in this respect.
There is perhaps one other more general moral which might be appreciated by the country and by the Government. It is that what Ebbw Vale says today will be unanimously welcomed by the nation twenty years hence, and probably the greatest problem of the nation and of the Government is to try to reduce this time lag.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: It is very enjoyable to be able to follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and agree with something that he has said. I approve of what he said about Aneurin Bevan, and I approve, too, his approbation of the National Health Service.
During the last year or so the Service has been under considerable fire from unworthy elements in our own country, aided by even more materially minded elements from across the water and other

parts of the world. I think that when one is able to stand back for a longer period than twenty years and look at this system, one will still find that it is one which will stand the tests of time, and one which, in the long run, other nations will follow.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Pavitt) made a lot of claims for the Bill which I do not find in it. The suggestion that it is going to open up a vast era of preventive medicine is a view which I cannot find anywhere in it, and I hope that in the course of the years we shall devote much more of our time and resources to preventive medicine, and for that matter to industrial medicine, because I feel that these are two spheres in which we can spend the nation's money to advantage.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East was also rather naïve when he referred to prescription charges. I have never been very keen on prescription charges, but I shall not go into the reasons for that. It is the least effective way of spending the nation's money to pour cascades of medicine down people's throats, and it is perhaps even less effective to put them into medicine cupboards.
The dissatisfaction that I felt with the hon. Member was more because of his complacency about the method of financing the National Health Service. We have been hopelessly unimaginative and unprogressive about this. In 1946 we instituted a method, and we have not sought subsequently to consider an alternative. The additional amount which the Bill will bring to bear upon the public purse should be dealt with in some other manner, although for the sake of brevity I will not now deal with that question.
My main purpose in rising was to congratulate the Minister on the changes which he has brought to the scene. Last year I said some rather harsh things about doctors because I felt very angry with many of them. I thought that for professional men their behaviour was intolerable, and I still feel that there is a tendency among people who are paid by the State to think that if they kick up enough row they can extort from the State the most inordinate demands. I do not like to see professional men behaving in this way.
But I can find some excuses for the doctors. I hope that hon. Members will consider the mechanics by which doctors arrive at their decisions, and their methods of consultation with each other. We are apt to think that the methods of the House are out of date, but I suggest that hon. Members should study the mechanics of the doctors. They will realise that they are so hopelessly Heath-Robinson that it is not surprising that doctors often get into the sort of difficulty they got into last year.
I hope that doctors will examine their consultative machinery and try to produce a system which will more accurately reflect their opinion, for it is almost impossible for the existing machinery to do so. Further, it is almost impossible for the doctors' leaders to be effective in their leadership.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in creating a more rational atmosphere. At one time I feared that he was being a little too generous and accommodating, but I realise that there are various methods of achieving a given end and that the most direct method is not always the most effective. I congratulate the Minister—and I also congratulate the doctors on having got over an almost neurotic period and on now realising that any major disturbance in the concept of the National Health Service is not a practical reality, and that their job is to co-operate with others engaged in medicine to produce the best kind of service.
I hope that we are now soundly launched upon a new era in which doctors will direct their attention not to their own grievances, or to the shortcomings of the National Health Service, or to the dfficulties created by a tiny minority of their patients, but to an all-out effort to improve the standards of medicine. Those standards are not sufficiently high. The report of the College of General Practitioners shows that the authoritative body of doctors themselves agree that there is a great distance to travel before we reach a sufficiently high standard.
I hope that general practitioners—especially the young ones—will realise that it is their duty to work for the best possible end in improving the existing service, because no substantial alteration

in this concept is possible or likely in the near or relatively distant future.
I have some criticism of the salaried service. I said to doctors while they were in this difficult frame of mind, "What this so-and-so "—naming the Minister— "is really after is to get you into a salaried service and you are not sensible or alert enough to realise it." I do not want to see doctors in salaried service, because it will impose on them certain elements of supervision which are not compatible with the job of a general medical practitioner.
I should like to see this principle applied even more strongly to hospital service. I would like to get rid of multiple consultations and make many changes there. It is not desirable to extend the field of salaried service for the general practitioner. I appreciate that there are circumstances in which salaried service becomes inescapable, but I hope that the Minister will restrict his application of such a service to the minimum.
On the whole, I do not think that the best type of doctor, who wants to give his best and do the greatest amount of work, will opt for a salaried service. I do not say that very worth-while doctors will not seek a salaried service, but, on the whole, the man who is most likely to render the most service to medicine will not be attracted to a salaried service. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will limit to the greatest possible degree the application of a salaried service.
I welcome the Bill, and I hope that doctors will take the consequences, not only for tidier and easier minds, but for tidier and easier surgeries in which to work. I emphasise above all that medicine is not simply a matter of a nice clean, tidy, efficient surgery, or even of having an efficient secretary. Medicine is something entirely removed from that. Although I do not deny the merits of these physical aims, the intangibles in medicine still remain the most important thing.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Charles Longbottom: It is always a great pleasure for the House to listen to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and it was right of him to remind us of the enormous part


played in the Health Service by his distinguished predecessor as Member for Ebbw Vale. Those of us who have had the pleasure of reading the hon. Member's writings about his predecessor appreciate fully everything he has said today about the way in which the Health Service came into being.
It is a great pleasure to see that the hon. Member approves of at least one small thing which this Government are doing. He has had to suffer much over the past 16 months. Often, we have seen him glowering in a corner or jumping to his feet in agonised appraisal of some items of Government policy which have happened since October, 1964. This is only a small progress, but it is a very good thing and we are delighted to see that at least this one Measure of this Government attracts his approval.
The Minister referred to one or two items which I should like to mention before coming to the Bill. He mentioned the question of free supplies of disposable needles for doctors. I took up with him in private correspondence on behalf of a constituent the question of why this should not be similarly applied to dentists and I was not completely convinced by his answer. I wonder whether he could have another look at this, as there are good grounds for believing that the requirements of sterilisation and hygiene, which is the reason for the doctors' need, are equally as important for dentists. For that matter, in his consideration of the Bill would the Minister consider the needs of dentists generally in this connection because in some areas the problem of their practices, surgeries and waiting rooms must be as great as it is for doctors?
It is appreciated on both sides that the sharing of professional knowledge, group practice, is right and that the ability to hire ancillary staff is bound to lead to better medicine. However, I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), particularly in view of the statistics he quoted for the number of group practices in existence today compared with two years ago. I, too, wonder whether we are doing enough to encourage group practice.
The Bill is one of a number of moves the Minister is taking to help the relationship between the general practitioner and his patient. It is, therefore, extremely

valuable. Doctors should have all the modern means to hand and the Minister rightly said that the profession attaches great importance to this. It is equally important for the patient to feel that he can go into a well-aired doctors' surgery and that, particularly if he must wait for quite a long time on what might be called a nervous occasion, he can sit in a reasonably congenial waiting room. Since the Bill will be of help to both doctors and patients, it is to be welcomed by all hon. Members.
I will deal with a number of questions which have been raised but which the Minister has not yet had an opportunity to answer. I hope that he will answer them all when he replies. When the question of interest-free loans was discussed it was pointed out how small in number they were. Indeed, the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) quoted the figure of only 95 loans amounting to£608,000.

Mr. Pavitt: That was for 1963.

Mr. Longbottom: That makes my argument even stronger. Considering the speeches which the Minister made about two years ago when he was on this side of the House, and considering the special cases for which these loans were made and how they will be affected by the operation of the Measure, has the right hon. Gentleman any comment to make about the future status of the loans which have been made? I imagine that they will continue to be based on the contractual obligations originally entered into. Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm this?
We appreciate that the Minister is setting up a Corporation to provide more attractive terms than those available in the open market. Will this apply in terms of years, remembering that the banks are notoriously "short" in the number of years over which they lend money? I was rather mystified by the Minister's remark about loans possibly applying for the period during which a doctor is in practice. Does he anticipate that a doctor going into practice at, say, 25 and retiring at, say, 65 will be able to repay the loan over the whole of that period? Or, if a doctor retires earlier, will he, when he sells his practice, be able to transfer his loan to his successor? This is an important provision and, perhaps, one of the


drawbacks to anything that could be done privately in this sphere.
The Minister was right in what he said about the rate of interest. As the Corporation will not be able to make either a profit or a loss, taking many years into account, there must obviously be a rational rate of interest, but does the right hon. Gentleman envisage a permanent or fluctuating rate of interest on loans from their inception? If the Corporation has to borrow in the open market it will presumably have to pay, perhaps, 1½per cent. above the current Bank Rate.
We are in a period of high Bank Rate now and the Corporation may have to borrow at 7 per cent. or 7½per cent., but we hope that when this Government eventually come round to bringing a better side to our economic affairs—or, certainly, when the next Government come in and do so—the present high rate of interest will be much reduced. In that case, the Corporation might in two or three years' time, or longer, be able to borrow at a substantially reduced rate. Are the people who borrow from the Corporation to be subject permanently to the rate of interest operating when they borrow, or will the rate fluctuate, as it would with a building society? I presume that the latter will be the case if the Corporation has to borrow at different rates.
I hope also that the activities of the Corporation will not be affected by any credit squeeze that might be imposed in future. It may be difficult for it to borrow in the open market, and I hope that there will not be a clamp down on its borrowing money there.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central and the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) have both referred to the fact that in the centre of urban areas the cost of buying premises is extremely high. I therefore hope that the Minister will not set some rigid ceiling on the amount of loans. Group practices in high-cost areas where land and buildings are extremely expensive will have to borrow substantial sums in order to take full benefit of the scheme—

Dr. David Kerr: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that this point is covered by the other proposals of my right hon.

Friend, which will deal with these high-cost rents on a pro rata basis?

Mr. Longbottom: I am not entirely clear or satisfied that they will. I am sure that those hon. Members who have knowledge of the high cost of offices or other premises in any of our large urban areas will recognise that group practices that are necessary there will need to borrow very much larger sums of money than would be needed in an ordinary small community or town, and at the moment I am much more keen on asking that there should be no rigid ceiling over and above that sum.
I am glad that the Minister made it very clear that two things will happen before Clause 10 operates; first of all, that there will be consultation with the medical profession as a whole and, secondly, that no salaried service or conditions will come about without the consent of the practitioner concerned. Those two points are an adequate safeguard to the profession—a safeguard that, having listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Halifax and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I can well see the profession wanting.
I appreciate that the Minister has not yet had time to do so, but will he say, in answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) whether Clause 10, and particularly subsection (2) of Clause 10, will be subject to the approval of the House, not in every case in which this would be used, but in the general overall circumstances in which this salaried service would happen? This is such a departure from previous practice in this field that it is right—I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the assurance—that it should be subject to the approval of this House. Subject to the answers to the questions we have posed from this side of the House, this Bill has our approval and we commend it to the House.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Derek Page: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and I will not impose on the House for more than a few moments. I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for a very worthy Bill and for the dignified way in which he has comported himself over the last 12 months. He is greatly to be congratulated.
One matter which has been raised by certain practitioners in my constituency was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). It concerns the disturbance which doctors are likely to encounter when entering group practice or health centres. This is liable to be a very severe stumbling block in the implementation of the ideas my right hon. Friend has in mind. I refer to the health centre report of the Medical Practitioners' Union which mentioned that the figures for the capital cost of health centres were difficult to assess due to the varied methods of presentation of accounts and that they all failed to take account of the cost of premises vacated by general practitioners and the subsequent lost value.
When general practitioners, particularly the more senior ones, are faced with the possibility of joining a scheme for a health centre they may be deterred when they realise that the value of consulting rooms and facilities they have installed—sometimes at quite considerable expense, in their own premises and often in their own homes—will be reduced to nothing. We may find great resistance on this, particularly from some of the more senior general practitioners. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the matter and see whether it is possible to arrange some sort of compensation for the loss and disturbance caused to general practitioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) made a point regarding the inclusion of dentists. In my constituency the ratio of dentists to patients is very low indeed, considerably lower than in other parts of the country. I have had approaches made from outside dentists about the possibility of moving into the area. They have asked what help could be afforded locally in obtaining suitable premises. I add my voice to those raised earlier on this matter. I cannot see why dentists should be excluded from the type of aid covered in the Bill. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider this point most carefully.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the time you have afforded me and I again compliment my right hon. Friend on the Bill. The improvement in the service offered to patients cannot be over-estimated. We have all had experi-

ence of grim consulting rooms and waiting rooms over so many years. This Bill can be a major Measure in overhauling these conditions. One matter which has not been raised so far is that administration and keeping of records, which is becoming an increasingly important part of medical practice, will become infinitely easier with the facilities afforded by the Bill. Hospitals place tremendous emphasis on accurate record-keeping. The visits of patients to doctors—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the National Health Service Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Page: Great emphasis has been placed by hospitals on the importance of record-keeping. Visits by patients to general practitioners are much more frequent than their visits to hospital and, therefore, the records much more difficult to maintain. This is becoming an increasing load on general practitioners. The health centres, which will be made so much easier to achieve by the Bill, will be a tremendous advantage in securing the more accurate maintenance of records by general practitioners.
I again congratulate my right hon. Friend and ask him particularly to consider at a later stage the two major points I have mentioned—first, compensation to doctors for disturbance, and, secondly, the inclusion of dentists in the provision of the facilities that he offers.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am most grateful for the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must ask leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Robinson: I beg the House's pardon and yours, Mr. Speaker. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer the points which have been raised in the debate. I was saying that I am extremely grateful for the welcome the Bill has received on all sides of the House. Before I deal with the points which have been raised—first, those of the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood)—may I say how sincerely I associate my


hon. Friends and myself with the tribute he paid to our late colleague, Dame Edith Pitt. Not only did I have a good deal to do with her when she was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry and afterwards when we crossed swords in debate, but I also travelled under her leadership on a Parliamentary delegation to Cyprus, when I got to know her extremely well. I am sure that all her friends will feel her loss very deeply.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions. The first was what would happen to the Report of the Review Body. I am sure that he did not expect me to give him a very detailed answer to this. I can only tell him that he would not expect me to say what action the Government would take on the Report which they have not yet seen. They will decide the action to take as soon as the Review Body has reported. The right hon. Gentleman will not have to contain himself very much longer before that happens.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) asked what would happen to the group practice interest-free loan scheme with the coming into operation of the Finance Corporation. The House might be interested to know that 618 loans have been approved, amounting to£3,640,000. The existence of the Finance Corporation need not affect in any way loans already made. If borrowers of the interest-free loans so wish, the loans could continue to be repayable to the executive councils and they will remain interest free. There will be consequential adjustments resulting from the reimbursement of practice expenses. The scheme will come to an end and in future borrowers will be expected to go to the Corporation for their finance.
There is a transitional problem of the loans, which I believe may total about£600,000, which have been approved but which will not be issued by the time the Corporation starts its operations. We shall have to work out in detail with the profession what is to happen in these cases, but I do not myself foresee any serious difficulties here.
We would not withdraw from such doctors the option of an interest-free loan if that was what they preferred. But I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman

and the House will realise that the attraction of the interest-free loan is no longer, or will, we hope, under the new contract be no longer what it was, since notional rents and also actual rents paid will be directly reimbursed under the new contract. The interest-free attraction, therefore, becomes substantially less.
The right hon. Gentleman said that under the new system the encouragement to group practice was more incidental than specific, since not only group practices would be able to obtain loans from the Corporation. It is because of this that we have had to look for some new form of financial inducement towards group practice, and this is embodied in the new method of payment in the form of a supplement to the basic practice allowance to doctors who practise in groups—groups, incidentally, as defined by the old group practice loan scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to something which I had said in opposition—not the first time he has done it—about replacing loans by grants, and he asked why I had changed my mind. In fact, we are doing in this Bill what the profession asked us to do. The profession did not ask for grants from the Government; it asked for an independent corporation. The arrangements which we are bringing in now are in harmony with what the doctors wanted and, in those circumstances, it did not seem to me that there was any useful purpose to be served by asking them, "But will you not have grants instead?" They have made perfectly clear that they wanted an independent finance corporation. Of course, I could have answered the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we have introduced grants in the form of improvement grants for practice premises, but I know that he was referring not to that but to grants instead of interest-free loans.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for York asked a number of questions about how the Corporation is to function, what its rates of interest would be, over what periods loans would be repaid, whether they would be transferable to successors in the event of death or retirement of a partner, would there be permanent or fluctuating rates of interest? All these are matters for the Corporation to decide for itself. It is a commercial body. It


has a statutory requirement to break even over a period, and it has to work out its own rules and submit a scheme to Ministers for approval; but within that framework it will have the sort of free hand that any business organisation ought to have in running its own affairs.
For my part, I do not want to impose any ceiling on an individual loan. I certainly do not want to lay down that rates of interest should be either permanent or fluctuating. But, clearly, there are many ways of approaching these matters, particularly as the Corporation will start operation, or it looks as though it will start operation, at a time of high interest rates. It is our intention that loans should be repayable over a normal professional career for a family doctor. I think that one might say that that is at least 30 to 35 years, possibly more. But, again, this will, no doubt, be embodied n the scheme which the Corporation submits for approval.
We have assured the medical profession that it is our intention that, if a doctor dies or retires before he has completely repaid his loan, it will be open to the Corporation to consider an application for the outstanding balance to be transferred to his successor, although it may want to vary the terms, and, presumably, in practice the successor will often want more from the Corporation than the amount outstanding on the original loan.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington asked when the Corporation was likely to start functioning. Subject to the Bill going swiftly through both Houses, as I hope it will, we shall set the Corporation up as soon as possible. I want to see it in operation as early in the coming financial year as it can function. There is no desire on my part to delay its functioning.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked why we are not giving the Corporation power to build and own its own premises. The reason is to avoid the conflict which would inevitably have risen with existing public authorities which can do this. Local health authorities and executive councils already have these powers and it was felt wrong to duplicate them. After all, if a practitioner wanted to go into publicly-owned premises which are built and owned by somebody else he would, I hope, in asso-

ciation with his colleagues try to get a health centre out of his local authority. As long as that power exists, there is no virtue in duplicating it in the Corporation.
I certainly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support—indeed, the support of almost every hon. Member who has spoken—for the development of group practice. It is most heartening to think that there is unanimity on this point. I believe that there is certainly growing acceptance within the medical profession that this is the modern pattern of general practice. I think it will certainly be the case that group practice will have first priority on loans, but there is no suggestion, however, that loans will be limited to doctors who are in group practice.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about methods of remuneration. He asked why I have not been able to agree to an experimental scheme in which doctors could charge a fee for their services which would be wholly or partly reclaimed from the Government. This proposal was not in the original "Doctors' Charter". A proposal on these lines was debated and carried at one of the representative meetings of doctors and there was a suggestion that it should be added to the charter at a late stage in the negotiations. I had to tell the profession that in the Government's view this idea was wholly alien to the whole concept of the National Health Service as we see it.
The right hon. Gentleman was worried whether the idea of payment by salary would call into question, so to speak, the personal nature of the doctor-patient relationship. I do not see why this need follow. I remind him that about half the doctors in the National Health Service are on salary already—the doctors in the Hospital Service, from consultants downwards. I do not think that they regard their relationships with their patients as anything less satisfactory than the relationships with their patients of doctors paid on a capitation basis.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the regulations that will be made under Clause 10, prescribing the circumstances in which salary will be payable, could be subject to affirmative procedure. We felt that there were already ample safeguards. We shall consult the medical profession. We shall


make it clear that this payment will only be made with the consent of the doctors concerned. The appropriate order will be subject to annulment. Prayers can be tabled against it if any hon. Member thinks that consultation with the doctors has been ignored. I would think that a sufficient safeguard. However, if the right hon. Gentleman feels so strongly on the matter that he wants to table an Amendment, we can discuss the possibilities in Committee.
When it comes to increasing the borrowing power of the Corporation, where possibly the liability of Exchequer money is involved, we have inserted the affirmative procedure for the necessary order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) seemed somewhat to disagree about whether the Bill would be an incentive to practise in health centres. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. I think that anything which encourages doctors to work together in groups will inevitably lead to more work in health centres. It is the breaking down of the isolation of the single-handed doctor which is the first important step to both group practice and health centre practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central said that he was extremely disappointed with the slow progress of the formation of group practices. I assure him that the number of single-handed practitioners is still going steadily down and that in October, 1964, there were only 5,000 single-handed practitioners in England and Wales, more than 200 fewer than in the previous year.

Dr. David Kerr: I accept that the number of single-handed practitioners is falling, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that they are forming practices of two doctors, or two or three, rather than practices of four or more.

Mr. Robinson: I do not have the figures for practices of four or more doctors. Certainly the number of partnerships of three or more is still going up, although, like my hon. Friend, I would like to see the rise a little more rapid.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not the case that we cannot expect to see a very rapid rise in the number of large group practices because geographical conditions do not necessarily allow that to be done? There must be a limit to the number of very large group practices.

Mr. Robinson: There may be a limit, but we are a long way from that limit at the moment. I have always said that group practice should become the normal pattern of practice in urban areas, but I recognise that in scattered rural areas it is very difficult to form groups into a practice from a single group surgery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central and a number of others asked why dentists were not included in the Bill. This is a general medical practitioner Bill and so far I do not have the evidence that dentists have anything like the same need for these facilities as I fully accept that the doctors have. It might be argued that at some future date they might need them and so we should include dentists in the Bill, but my answer to that must be that Parliament does not altogether like legislating for hypothetical situations. I am having current discussions with the dental profession covering a wide range of subjects, and if as a result of that there is evidence of serious need among dentists for similar facilities, we can certainly consider providing them, either at some later stage extending the Bill, or by separate action.
On the whole, the provisions for salaried service were fairly well understood and appreciated by every hon. Member who spoke. There is no desire to impose salaried service on those who do not wish to have it, but I welcome, as do many of my hon. Friends, the fact that for the first time the profession itself has expressed a willingness to consider this as one of the methods by which family doctors could be paid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central, seemed to be under a misapprehension about the regulations prescribing the circumstances in which salaries would be paid. It would be my intention to lay not a number of regulations but just one general regulation prescribing a set of general circumstances for example, where doctors practise from publicly provided premises with publicly provided ancillary help and that kind of


thing. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that the Bill will help young doctors to establish themselves in general practice, and by so doing I hope that it will make a contribution to reversing the trend for many young doctors to leave general practice. This is perhaps the most important thing that we can do—so to improve the conditions of general practice that the young newly qualified doctor will once again regard this as a very worthy way to spend his medical career.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) spoke of the situation in the Rhondda Valley. I accept that this is a very difficult situation, and it is one on which my Department has recently made a special study. At this moment we are actively pursuing ways of relieving the doctor shortage in that part of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) was quite right to be sceptical about the figure of 900 doctors supposed to be emigrating every year. This figure has been bandied about recently but we have no evidence to support a figure anything like this. The last figures I gave to the House on the estimated number of doctors emigrating was about 300 to 350 a year. That is high enough but this figure of 900 bears very little relation to the facts.
In the course of an extremely entertaining and apposite speech my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale gave us a fascinating glimpse of what I hope is going to be an important section of the second volume of his life of Aneurin Bevan. I am looking forward to this even more than I looked forward to the first one. He was quite right to point out that there were certain ironies in the situation in which we now find ourselves in the National Health Service, compared to what happened about 20 years ago when Aneurin Bevan opened the initial negotiations with the profession. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made some very forceful observations about the medical profession and its structure and methods of consultation. I will not comment on them but I am confident that they will not go unnoticed within the profession. That made me all the more sorry to have to disagree with him about the kind of general prac-

titioner who would be likely to opt for payment by salary.
I can see no reason whatever for suggesting that this would be in any way an untypical doctor. It would be a doctor, as I suggested in my opening remarks, who just does not want to be burdened with the business of providing his premises and staff and organising them. He just wants to get on with treating patients and I think that he is likely to be just as good a practitioner as a man who is keen on the status of an independent contractor. I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) on what I believe was his maiden speech from that Box in his present shadow position. I hope that he occupies it for a very long time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty years."] He asked me about sterile syringes for dentists. This is not immediately relevant to the Bill before us, but I am having discussions with the dental profession and I am sorry that he was unconvinced by my reasons for not extending the concession to dentists. No doubt if there is a strong demand for these syringes, the representatives of the profession will let me know about it. I am glad that he stressed the value of this Bill to the patients no less than to the doctors.
May I say once again that I am most grateful for the reception which the Bill has received. I hope that before very long it will be on the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Harper.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUAL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the financing of premises and equipment used by practitioners providing general medical services, it is expedient to authorize—



(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances of members of any Corporation to be established under that Act and, in special circumstances, of compensation to a person ceasing to be such a member;
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of pensions, allowances or gratuities, or of contributions towards the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of such members on retirement or death;
(c) any increase in the sums payable under any other Act out of moneys proided by Parliament which is attributable to the provision for or in respect of members or officers of the Corporation of benefits payable under regulations made under section 67(1) of the National Health Service Act

1946 or section 66(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 or to the payment of transfer value in respect of such members or officers;
(d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund and repayment with interest into the Exchequer of any sum required for fulfilling any guarantee of the redemption or repayment of any stock issued or temporary loan raised by the Corporation or of the payment of interest on any such stock or loan, subject to the limitation that the aggregate of the amounts outstanding in respect of the principal of any such stock or loan does not exceed ten million pounds or such greater sum not exceeding twenty-five million pounds as may be specified by order, but excluding from that limit any sum raised for the redemption or repayment of any such stock or loan.—[Mr. MacDertnot.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

First Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services),

to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee it the said Report.—[Mr. Bowden.]

UNITED STATES (TRADE MISSION'S VISIT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

10.28 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: My reason for raising this matter on the Adjournment is that I am profoundly dissatisfied with the Answer given by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), to a Question of mine on 13th December last year about the treatment given in New York by our embassy to a mission of 11 Leicester businessmen who had gone to the United States to increase their export trade.
The House may wonder why I, representing a Suffolk constituency, have a particular interest in this matter. I have had various business connections concerned with exports for over 20 years. I am the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party's Trade and Industry Committee, and I try to watch the interests of British exporters.
I was supported on 13th December by the hon. Members for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) and Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). We all felt that the Minister of State had not been forthcoming in his reply. I used the word "whitewashing". Now that I have had a chance to investigate further, I feel that this was a rather mild word.
I was told by a telephone message at 1.15 p.m. on 13th December that this Question. No. 35, would be answered by leave at the end of Question Time. The

Minister of State may not have informed you, Mr. Speaker, but I was called by you, and when I called the number of the Question the Minister answered it. I consider that this was very discourteous because I might have been out of the Chamber. Since then I have had no apology from the Foreign Office.
It is a tradition of this House—and rightly so—that we do not criticise our very valued civil servants and that we always make our criticism to the Minister in charge of the Department. I see tonight on the Government Front Bench the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), who I understand is to reply to this debate. To my mind, this does not let the Foreign Office out of its collective responsibility and I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say he will be rather more forthcoming.
The Leicester Chamber of Commerce was subjected to much abuse, particularly by the noble Lord the Minister of State, Board of Trade when he visited Leicester fairly soon after the return of the mission. He was new in his Government post and, perhaps rightly, he was trying to defend his civil servants, but I do not think that gives a Minister the right to abuse other public citizens of this country who, I think, have every right to be defended by hon. Members.
I have now had an opportunity of seeing copies of all the correspondence which took place between the Chamber of Commerce and the Government Departments, and I am satisfied that the Chamber of Commerce acted the whole time in a most praiseworthy manner. Even when it discovered the lack of preparation in New York by the British Embassy at Washington it did not leak this matter to the Press. These businessmen made their official complaint on their return through the right channel, to the Committee for Exports to the United States, whose Chairman is Lord Watkinson. It became general knowledge because this Committee, which, after all, is a publicly-sponsored body, attached so much importance to this Leicester mission that it prevailed upon the B.B.C., at its own expense, to send a team of photographers to record the various highlights of the trip. It was through the B.B.C. that that matter became public, according to my


information. It was commented on in the Press and thus led to my Question.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs has tried to say that his Department was not properly informed and that this led to the British Consul in New York taking little or no action when the mission arrived there. I have taken the opportunity to meet both the then President of the Leicester Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Riddington, and Mr. Milliard, the Secretary. I was impressed by the high quality of these gentlemen. I would point out that this was not a new venture for the Leicester Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Milliard is well experienced in organising missions to foreign countries, and particularly for smaller firms. In the last four years he has organised representatives of no fewer than 53 smaller firms to go on trade missions overseas, with great benefit to the export trade of these firms and the nation as a whole. Therefore, he was a very experienced secretary who knew most of the ropes in organising missions abroad.
As to the fact whether the Foreign Office was given sufficient notice about this visit, first Mr. Davis, the Secretary of the Committee of Exports to the United States, following a visit to Leicester in consultation with the Chamber of Commerce, wrote to the Commercial Minister of our Embassy at Washington on 6th May, 1965, over four months before the mission left. He also wrote to the British and American Chambers of Commerce in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, the cities visited. Following this, Mr. Davis went to the United States and wrote back on 2nd June to Mr. Milliard that he had met representatives in Los Angeles and there was great enthusiasm there for the visit.
On 30th June Mr. Milliard wrote to Mr. Spooner, the Director of the British Trade Centre, British-American Chamber of Commerce, giving all the details of the party and stating that they would be arriving on Monday. 12th September. On 5th July, Mr. Milliard wrote to Mr. Kenneth MacKenzie at the Board of Trade giving full details of the mission. That gentleman sent a useful letter in reply saying that he would do anything he could to help and asking whether advance details had been sent to the Consul General and the Embassy. Mr. Milliard

replied on 8th July that the Consul Generals in San Francisco, Chicago and New York had been notified as well as the Commercial Minister at Washington.
On 15th July, the Secretary of the Committee for Exports to the United States wrote to Mr. Milliard saying that he had had a letter from an officer of the Commercial Department of the Embassy at Washington saying how delighted they were to hear of the visit in September and how keen they were to help. He asked for details of each company which was sending a representative and of their past record of experience.
On 21st July, the Commercial Minister in our Embassy at Washington wrote a long letter to Mr. Milliard saying that he was anxious to be of as much assistance to the mission as possible and that he thought it would be important to get buyers from chain stores to meet the mission. It was on 27th-28th July, by airmail, that Mr. Milliard sent off all the details and the brochures of the individual firms that were asked for. I have with me a copy showing the great detail in which all this was done.
To my mind—and I hope that I have taken the House with me—the Leicester Chamber of Commerce must be absolutely exonerated that they did not give either to the Board of Trade or to the Foreign Office, including our British Consuls, full details about the visit, the types of goods made by the companies and the representatives who were going.
Now, what did not happen? No one from the Consulate in New York met the members of the mission at the airport and difficulties were encountered at the Customs over samples. In spite of exact details having been obtained from the American Embassy, much delay was caused because one of the Customs officers —this was not, of course, the fault of our Foreign Office—did not know the United States regulations. A junior officer from our Consul General's office could probably have helped the mission to get through far more easily.
The members of the mission understood that arrangements had been made for them to meet representatives of New York firms in their hotel and they were informed that about 500 letters had been sent out with this in mind. The first day following their arrival on the Sunday, was


fruitless because hardly anyone came to see the hosiery members. It was found later that the list did not include any name of recognisable standing. It was not until a representative of Rosenthal & Rosenthal, a firm of factors, arrived that it was discovered that the list of those who were asked to meet the mission comprised agents, shippers and importers and only one representative of a chain store, the Jewel Tea Co. Therefore, a great deal of time was wasted on the Monday. It was not until the evening of that day that the mission saw any member of the consulate staff, and this was at a small reception given by the mission itself. This is extremely different from the tone of the Commercial Minister's letter some six or seven weeks earlier.
I find it difficult, therefore, to accept what the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore, said in the House on 13th December, when he stated that any shortcomings
were due mainly to the failure of the Leicester Chamber of Commerce to provide adequate information
and that
The Consulate General…was brought in at a very late stage"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1965; Vol. 722, col. 909.]
After the mission had made strong representations, more attention was given to its needs and further instructions were sent to the other cities which it was visiting, with good results. In the final report of its visit, which it published in booklet form, the mission drew attention to the need for more marketing officers who understand the needs of exporters. I realise that I may be treading on the province of the Plowden inquiry, but this is a subject which I have raised in the House before as to whether a man in the Foreign Office who is brought up and trained in political and diplomatic circles, and who may be very good in that direction, is best qualified to be a commercial representative. I have met them myself. Some are excellent, but some fall down. I have been informed that some of these officials have now been moved, and perhaps the Minister of State would like to confirm that.
I have tried to keep my remarks short, because I see two hon. Members here who represent the great city of Leicester, and I believe that if they are lucky enough

to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they wish to intervene.
In view of these facts, I hope that the Minister will now be more forthcoming and withdraw the criticism made of the Leicester Chamber of Commerce and say that no blame attaches to it, otherwise Leicester businessmen and others may be discouraged from further activities designed to improve our exports.
The House knows that mistakes can be made, and it is always extremely kind when a Minister apologises. We hope that this type of incident will not happen again and, as a result, that good may flow out of evil.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) for giving up a moment or two of his time, permitting me to be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All the facts surrounding this unfortunate fiasco are well known and, while there may be fault on both sides, there is no doubt in my mind that the balance of the argument is clearly in favour of the Leicester and County Chamber of Commerce. It is certainly exonerated on the question of supplying sufficient information.
The Leicester and County Chamber of Commerce is very export-minded, and it has sent abroad no less than nine different trade missions in the past five years. Their experiences abroad, particularly in New York, lend support to the view that the commercial organisation of our consulates leave much to be desired.
While my hon. Friend will no doubt be replying to the debate on the specific details of the Leicester visit, I would ask him to examine the wider question here. The commercial sections of our consulates should not be staffed by career diplomats merely gaining knowledge on their way through. They should be manned by men of wide business experience. There ought to be a proper career structure for commercial staff and until that aspect of the work of our consulates is given a higher rating, our exporters will not get the assistance that they need and deserve.
I urge my hon. Friend to hold a thorough inquiry into both the composition and the structure of our commercial


representation abroad, for until that is done I am sure that we shall continue to hear of the kind of frustration and irritation that we had in this instance.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: I, too, am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) for giving up a moment or two of his Adjournment debate to enable me to intervene, since not only do I represent part of the great commercial city of Leicester, but quite a number of the people concerned are my constituents.
I can confirm what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the Secretary of the Leicester Chamber of Commerce. He is an outstanding citizen of the city and a very competent person. I, too, have been able to study most of the vital correspondence on the subject, and I have talked to a number of people intimately concerned with our exports to the United States.
I have come very clearly to the conclusion that, whatever blame there is, very little of it should be placed upon the shoulders of the Leicester and County Chamber of Commerce. It may be that in view of the fact that there are a lot of citizens of Leicester with direct experience of exports, it might have consulted them more beforehand. But certainly in every other respect, the Leicester Chamber of Commerce fulfilled all that could be expected of it.
It seems to me that there was a lack of co-ordination in New York; that the committee on exports to the United States would have done better to have put them in direct touch with the Consulate rather than with the British-American Chamber of Commerce. That was not the fault of the Leicester Chamber of Commerce. The British-American Chamber of Commerce and our Consulate were both advised of this nearly 4½months before the visit took place. Every bit of information for which the Leicester Chamber of Commerce was asked was supplied promptly, and therefore it cannot be held to blame in any way for people going away on holiday from the Consulate in Washington or in New York, or removing the business from Washington to New York. None of that can be attributed to the Leicester Chamber of Commerce.
That brings me to three things which I think we have a right to ask the Government. As exports are of such vital interest and importance to this country, we should be assured that we have the best machinery, that there is proper coordination, that the right people are put in the right places, and that they have the right training and the right terms of service to attract the right people.
I do not believe that we want salesmen in our consulates, because the job of selling abroad should be done by the exporters. We want people who know what is required and who will oil the wheels and enable our exporters to take full advantage of the opportunities before them. I am not convinced that the machinery is working well, and that this is the best we can expect. It may be that we should spend some more money on it, and we would then get a better return. If that is the case, I hope that it will be spent on a machine and on men who know what our exporters need and can help them to sell their goods. I hope that these things will be looked at very carefully by the Government, and that we shall not get this sort of thing happening again.

10.47 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I ought, I think, to apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) for a misunderstanding which arose about answering his original Question at the end of the year. I have been trying to make inquiries about it. The Foreign Office sought to answer the Question at the end of Question Time, as we undertook to do, but something went wrong with the arrangement. I ought perhaps to add that that was the morning when the Foreign Secretary was suddenly taken very ill. He would have answered the Question if he had been well, and his junior Ministers had to take over the Question at short notice that morning.
The hon. and gallant Member has raised a very important matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for drawing attention to the shortcomings in the arrangements for the visit of the mission from the Leicester Chamber of Commerce to the United States.
Since the last exchanges in the House I have thoroughly investigated these matters. The Foreign Office has been very reluctant, and I believe properly reluctant, to explain exactly what went wrong in New York, and why it went wrong. We were reluctant to do so because we did not want to appear to criticise a local chamber of commerce which is doing what the Government want chambers of commerce to do, and is seeking to respond to the Government's exhortations to increase exports.
I confess that I approach my task tonight reluctantly, but there have been some strong attacks on our Consulate General in New York. The hon. and gallant Member said it with personal moderation, but he confessed that he thought "whitewash" had turned out to he too mild a word for our answers in the House on an earlier occasion. I feel that I have no alternative but to defend public officers who are unable to defend themselves against quite unjust criticism.
The basic fact is that the Consulate General in New York has been blamed for something which was simply not its responsibility. The Leicester mission, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Bradley) has said, accepted that the British-American Chamber of Commerce should be responsible for all the arrangements. This may have been a mistake, but it was not the Government's decision that this should have been done in this way. This agreement between the two groups of businessmen was accepted by all concerned.
I hesitate to intervene in a matter that lies essentially between two chambers of commerce, but in fairness to the British-American Chamber of Commerce it should be said that the mission's arrangements in New York were unsatisfactory because the Leicester Chamber did not explain its requirements fully enough, or far enough in advance. It is right that a good deal of information, in terms of volume, was conveyed, but this is not enough; it is the quality of the information that matters.
I will give some examples. One leading member of the mission asked in advance that he should be helped to appoint sales agents. When he got to New York he said that what he wanted to do was some-

thing quite different—to meet buyers. Another proved to be interested in the technical subject of cross-licensing arrangements. He had given no advance information of this, only a general description of his firm's production. Another expressed interest in marketing a product which his firm did not make.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the success of this kind of operation lies in detailed staff work in advance. It is too late to start saying what one wants when one gets there. So I sympathise about the difficulties faced by the British-American Chamber of Commerce, which does such excellent work for British exports on the other side of the Atlantic.
But I do not accept that the Consulate General in New York should have come in for the blame for arrangements which it did not make. Its help was sought only when it was clear that things had gone wrong. Then it did a great deal. It was too late at that stage to remedy all the difficulties that had arisen in New York, although it tried its best. But steps were taken to ensure that the arrangements made between the two chambers of commerce for Chicago and Los Angeles were tightened up, and these visits were very successful.
I should add that there seems to have been some misunderstanding on the part of the mission in New York as to what it could realistically expect of this kind of operation. The members of a mixed mission like this must be ready not only to make their preparations in good time, but also to go out and get business when they arrive. Certainly, in a city of the complexity and frantic bustle of New York, overworked buyers will not come in of their own volition to meet the members of a small mixed mission.
I have gone through the papers and I have seen nothing to suggest that anybody led the mission to expect otherwise. The correspondence I saw showed that both the British-American Chamber of Commerce and the Embassy in Washington warned the mission that it would have to go out after the buyers. The Embassy in Washington expressed regret that it was unable to be more helpful in rescuing the situation in New York once the mission had arrived. There was the problem that the hon. Member has mentioned, of changing from Washington to


New York, and as it was, the preparatory period was the period when people were on leave.
The point is that the responsibility clearly lay between the two chambers of commerce. We did not have a direct responsibility, but when things went wrong we stepped in and tried to do the very best we could. I cannot see why the statement made by our Embassy in Washington, that we would have liked to do more, should have been interpreted as an admission that we were to blame, when the responsibility for these unsatisfactory arrangements clearly lay with others.
When the New York commercial staff, who have been so strongly criticised, have export missions for which they accept direct responsibility, they invariably earn high praise for the helpfulness and the effective assistance that they provide. There are many recent missions that I could quote to the House where businessmen have given high praise for the services they have received from our Consulate General in New York.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye mentioned the complaint of the Leicester mission that they were not met at the airport. This also was a case of the precise arrangements having been made with the British-American Chamber of Commerce to look after this, and our Consulate General deliberately stayed away in order not to derogate from the authority of the chamber of commerce. Otherwise, they would have been there.
One of the missions which has paid tribute to the work of our consulate found the staff of our Consulate General on duty at 4.30 in the morning not many months ago when their plane, which had been delayed, finally arrived in New York. The leader of that mission, which comprised representatives of the leatherwear trade, was good enough to tell the Press:
How many businessmen would expect their companies' representatives to meet them at 4.30 a.m.?
That is the way in which our commercial officers generally do their duty, but they cannot be expected to fulfil responsibili-

ties which they have not been asked to carry.
I do not have time to deal with the more general issues which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East, but I should like to say of our commercial diplomats that the whole question of whether businessmen should be used for this sort of task was investigated carefully by the Plowden Committee, and they came down against it. There are difficulties in this respect. First, if people with active business experience do this kind of work, some businessmen may be in some difficulty if they find an ex-competitor sitting in the consulate chair. The best people are needed for this, and the kind of people who are prepared to leave business in mid-passage are not necessarily the right men to act as commercial diplomats.
I would emphasise that the instruction from our overseas Departments now is that the promotion of British exports is given top priority in our overseas posts. This is continually pressed on the members of those posts. When they come back here, the men spend their time touring the country, meeting businessmen, familiarising themselves with British industry. The kind of picture which was presented by one of the Leicester critics of the Foreign Office performance in this, of the commercial diplomat as being a cocktail party addict in striped trousers, is the grossest and most unfair of caricatures.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye was right to say that apologies in the House are always taken with great magnaminity, and I would apologise to the Leicester Chamber of Commerce through the hon. Members who have properly raised this subject tonight if I honestly thought that our Consulate General had failed in its duty—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.